The limitations of language do not excuse the issues in your claims. Possibly, but I fail to see how this links to your notions of the existence of "nothing", since Parmenides argued that there was, and can be, no "nothing". Nor does it appear to link in any way to your notion of freewill. Okay, so you think Parmenides is correct and that there is no motion or change, but that he failed to consider the temporal nature of cause and effect? :bugeye: Parmenides didn't advocate any cause and effect, but a fixed past, present and future. His was fatalism at its purest. And he didn't advocate movement as a reality at all, irrespective of where it can be determined from. Parmenides' philosophy is like a record... as the record plays the music comes in and out of existence: this is our perception, what he referred to as "The Way of Opinion". But he saw reality as being the record itself, the music may appear to come in and out of existence, but the groove is already there, the music fixed in place. So now you advocate for freewill being genuine by invoking a philosopher who was a fatalist?