Dave, I'm the one who caught you in this trap. Didn't you notice the irony? As a believer, I'm allowed to talk about immaterial entities, but as an atheist, it's taboo for you. But you talk about them.
No. You are the one who tried to rule out feelings by saying there's no scientific evidence.
I am not trying to play two sides of the coin; you are.
If you're going to invoke immaterial entities, you'll have to hold yourself to that same standard: show us this scientific evidence of your immaterial entity, or it is disqualified - by your own say so - from this discussion.
Besides, it's not true. There's plenty of evidence that my actions are initiated from within my physical form in general, and my brain in particular.
If
you want to argue that my actions are controlled by something
other than my thinking brain (which objectively exists and is irrefutably ythe source of my actions) the onus is on you to provide that mechanism. And since you're demanding scientific evidence, I'll be expecting some description of a mechanism by which a red ball sitting on a table can make me choose it.
The evidence is in my favour. As always, your belief in immaterial causes is disqualified by your own insistence on scientific evidence.
But again, it
still comes down to what you think the term "free will" means. You seem think it must mean the ability to defy the laws of nature. I don't see why. I have as many choices as there permutations of balls on the table. As well as many other choices - like taking a nap, leaving the room, flipping the table or assaulting the researcher. Where in there do you think I don't have free will? I think I need to have that question answered in a way that clarifies why I don't have choice.
It's almost like you think the
only definition of "free will" is
an action that has no initiating cause - truly random - like the decay of a proton. That seems like the
opposite of free will to me, because there are
zero choices.
