Have you considered the results of the AWARE-II study? Please see: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0300957223002162

I agree.

An all-knowing being by definition knows everything which includes what my room and I look like. This is getting boring.

An all-knowing being would be able to describe my room and what I look like even without teleporting into my room. Your lies are not even plausible.

Ok, please describe my room and what I look like.

You have claimed that you have done all the tasks but you have not proven to me and others on this forum with evidence that you have done all the tasks.

Why would an all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful being as you claim you are, be afraid of exposing his or her identity? What about doing something else from the list that doesn't expose your identity but still proves your claim that you have done all the tasks on the list?

LOL. It's not a matter of practice. Learning to play the piano is a matter of practice.

Ok, thank you for sharing.

Human Rights were declared on the 10th of December 1948 by the United Nations. Please see https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights Unfortunately, these rights are not implemented for all humans worldwide.

If I could make all living things all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful, then everything would be perfect for everyone. Sadly, I can't do it.

I said in an earlier post:

My definition of free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints. To prove me wrong, you would have to do the following:

1. Live forever without consuming any oxygen, fluids, or food.
2. Do things other organisms e.g. tardigrades, dolphins, chameleons, etc. can do.
3. Teleport everywhere and everywhen.
4. Prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths.
5. Make all living things (including the dead ones and the never-born ones) forever happy.
6. Be all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful and make all the other beings also all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful.
7. Own an infinite number of universes and give all beings an infinite number of universes each for free.

Once you have done the above tasks, I will be convinced that you have free will. If I had free will, I would have already done the above tasks.

You claimed that you had completed the tasks. I am asking for evidence proving that each of the tasks has been completed by you. Showing a video of yourself changing your skin colour like a chameleon would prove that even though you don't have the genes of a chameleon you can do what a chameleon can do. This would prove that genes don't determine what we can and can't do.

How do you know this to be true?

I agree that the USA is hardly a benchmark for the form of government. I think the Earth should be one egalitarian country where everyone's Human Rights are protected and there is a separation between government and religion.

To start with, please post a video of yourself changing colour like chameleons.

Isn't democracy just majority rule where the 51% takes away the rights of the 49%? Besides, gerrymandering can make sure that even the minority takes away the rights of the majority. As can the Electoral College system in the USA where in 2016, Hillary Clinton got more votes from the public yet lost to Donald Trump who got more Electoral College votes. She got 65,853,514 votes from the public and he got 62,984,828 votes from the public. She got 227 electoral college votes and he got 304 electoral college votes.

Ideally, all living things should be all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful and own an infinite number of universes each and there should be no suffering, inequality, injustice, and death. We don't live in an ideal universe.

If we had free will, we would be culpable, but we don't have free will, so we are not culpable. If the compatibilists are right, we could have limited free will, but I think they are wrong. Please see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqj32jxOC0Y

I agree that concepts can be known with100% certainty.

We already agreed that randomness does not add culpability. True randomness exists only at the quantum scale. True randomness does not exist at the macroscopic scale due to quantum decoherence.

LOL. You are great at lying. I would love to see you prove your claims with evidence.

You are lying. I have experienced suffering myself and have witnessed the suffering of others. Although I have not yet died, I will. You will, too.

I have seen how a zygote is formed and how it develops. That's my evidence. A zygote does not create itself.

You have provided no evidence for your claims. For me, the arbiter of truth is evidence. If you are truly all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful why did you fail to prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice and deaths?

If I were all-knowing and all-powerful, I would have prevented the removal of my omniscience and omnipotence by you or anyone else!

I have seen no evidence that supports your claim that we are self-movers. I have seen evidence which supports my position that we are not self-movers. For me, the arbiter of truth is evidence.

I understand what you said but the problem is that we are not self-movers. We don't choose to come into existence. We don't choose our genes, the environment that allows our zygote to develop, the nutrients that allow our zygote to multiply and multiply until we are adults and the experiences that shape our values, knowledge and skills. We are not deserving of any praise or blame because our choices are not free from variables not chosen by us.

If you had done the tasks on the list, I would be all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful. While I am all-loving, I am definitely not all-knowing and all-powerful.

Not done!

Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed reply.

My definition of free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints. To prove me wrong, you would have to do the following:

1. Live forever without consuming any oxygen, fluids, or food.
2. Do things other organisms e.g. tardigrades, dolphins, chameleons, etc. can do.
3. Teleport everywhere and everywhen.
4. Prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths.
5. Make all living things (including the dead ones and the never-born ones) forever happy.
6. Be all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful and make all the other beings also all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful.
7. Own an infinite number of universes and give all beings an infinite number of universes each for free.

Once you have done the above tasks, I will be convinced that you have free will. If I had free will, I would have already done the above tasks.

"If hard determinism is true, then no one is morally culpable. How do we figure out whether or not hard determinism is true?" Here is the definition of hard determinism from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_determinism "Hard determinism (or metaphysical determinism) is a view on free will which holds that determinism is true, that it is incompatible with free will, and therefore that free will does not exist." If hard determinism is true, then we don't have free will hence, we are not culpable.

Who has free will? Aren't all living things prisoners of causality?

In "Determined: Life Without Free Will" by Robert M Sapolsky he presents evidence which supports the idea that criminals are damaged and in need of repair and the idea that they should be quarantined until they are repaired in order to protect others from them. Normally people with contagious illnesses are quarantined to protect others from catching the illness. People in quarantine are not blamed or called evil but are considered victims who need help. I am convinced by Professor Sapolsky's evidence and arguments.

As a concept, yes, I am.

I don't think randomness adds culpability. I don't think our choices are random. I think our choices are determined and constrained by our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences.

Adding soul to the equation only confuses the matter. How does an immaterial soul interact with a material body? How can an immaterial soul make choices that are free from genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences? I don't know. I am not convinced that souls exist.

I don't know of any alternative to hard determinism that is evidence-based. I am aware that religious people believe that people have free will due to having immortal souls piloting their bodies. I am not convinced that souls exist but I am open to examining any evidence offered.

Quantum indeterminism does not lead to macroscopic indeterminism because of quantum decoherence. Also, quantum randomness does not lead to macroscopic randomness because of quantum decoherence.

Besides, randomness cannot be the justification for moral culpability of any being except for an all-knowing and all-powerful God who could be blamed and praised for everything that exists and everything that happens.

I am not convinced that God or gods exist but I am open to examining any evidence offered.

Thank you for explaining the context. I would never be a judge because I have no idea how to work out who is morally culpable.

That's interesting. I am sorry that I didn't think of "None of the above" as one of the options. Why didn't I think of that? Is it my fault? Is it inevitable that I did not think of that but you did? I don't know.

I agree that morals are social constructs but social constructs are not free from the biology, chemistry and physics that make up the members of a society. In other words, social rules are not free from hard determinism, they are determined by hard determinism.

If hard determinism is true, then everything that happens, happens inevitably and no one has moral culpability. This is what I think but I can't prove or disprove hard determinism.

What are the implications of hard determinism?

I agree with you.

I will do my best to clarify what I mean by actual culpability.

If X murders Y, the legal system will hold him/her culpable. However, if hard determinism is true, then it is inevitable that X murdered Y. In that case, X is not actually culpable. The actions of X are as determined and inevitable as death by an earthquake. We don't hold earthquakes culpable for murder, but we hold adult humans of sound mind culpable for murder. Should we though? Are they actually any more culpable than an earthquake is culpable?