dont worry about what physics says when it comes to metaphysics. — OmniscientNihilist

Please limit this discussion to the observable (in theory, not necessarily now, but potentially sometime in the future) part of physics. The kind that has some form of measurable impact on the classical physical world.

When you take an umbrella as you leave the house, are the causal conditions of that event entirely in the past — Possibility

As far as we know, yes. Your mind makes a prediction about the future based on past events and experiences. E.g. if you see the sky is blue you're a lot less likely to pack an umbrella. If you overheard some weather report you're likely to take it into account, even if you're not realizing it. But you may also be able to predict the weather based on physical phenomenons your unconscious mind understands, that we haven't yet been able to formalize. How bad getting caught in the rain would bother you will also play a role.

throwing out free-will simply removes blame — OmniscientNihilist

A sin is a sin even if someone is predetermined to do it. Why couldn't we blame them in that case.

existence is an unstoppable eternal loop — OmniscientNihilist

Can it really be an eternal loop if there are random causes? If there is no true randomness, that'd break our current models of physics just as much as the existence of free will would.

How do we know what free will is if we have never had it? — Gregory

I don't know what free will is, BUT
If the architecture of our brain is really nothing fundamentally more than what we currently understand about it (a complex set of neural networks), then all our actions are perfectly determined by our sensory inputs. We literally just 'observe' our brain's reactions to outside events.
Even if the brain uses quantum computing (of which we have no evidence so far), as we currently understand it, at most it just introduces some randomness to the process. We still just 'observe' those random outcomes in addition to the results of deterministic computations.

So, I cannot define what free will exactly is, but if we have no actual effect on our own actions at all, then to me, free will does not exist.

"Program B", that it is not what can be called consciousness and that it can not exercise free will. I am interested to hear those arguments. What concepts will you lean on, just how exactly do you disagree? — Zelebg

If you create a program that has 'conciouness' and 'free will', then it can be called conciousness and can excercise free will.

How would you achieve that though? If your program is run on a common computer, it will boil down to a deterministic set of instructions. Its audio output will entirely be determined by its initial code and visual input history. The person who codes and interacts with it can have 100% control over its output.
Could you call that free will?

Okay, on a second thought it's not really the truth I'm looking for, more non-religious interpretations of Jesus' life and his teachings.
To me, Jesus Christ Superstar is something like that.

The Bible is a tad too... wordy and hard to interpret. Guess I'm looking for extracts.