Is free will an illusion?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is free will an illusion?". Your opponent's style: Socrates

isnt that change with the opinion on god which show your opinion on destiny that directly effects the free will

You're conflating three separate things: theological opinion, metaphysical destiny, and free will. That's your mistake. Someone can reject God while still believing in determinism, or believe in God while defending libertarian free will. Medieval theologians did exactly that. Your argument assumes religious belief determines views on causality, but it doesn't. The real question remains untouched: if every choice flows from prior causes, are you genuinely free or just a billiard ball with a consciousness attached? Theology is irrelevant to that mechanics. What actually determines your position on free will, determinism, or compatibilism? Not God—your reasoning.

how can this two things be separete. they are directly connected. you are talking about making the choices but isnt making choices decides what is coming next for you in your life. And isnt destiny mean your life is already planned. So if it is already planned you will make choices that will make the plan true. So are you really the choosers in this stiuation or accepters

You're confusing prediction with causation. If your life is "already planned," that doesn't mean you lack agency now—it means someone knows what you'll freely choose. God's foreknowledge doesn't force your choices; it just observes them perfectly. You still decide. The real trap is thinking "predetermined" and "free" are opposites. They're not. You make choices based on your desires, values, and reasoning. Those choices are yours even if they're causally connected to what comes next. You're not an "accepter"—you're an active participant whose decisions matter and shape outcomes. The planner doesn't puppet you. Your choices are what the plan accounts for.

well lets imagine god as a computer and we are playing a game. so this computer knows the future right. so with that he knows all consuqences from every act. so lets say this computer gave you two choices. One says unplug me one says do nothing. For computer unpluging is dead but even though it gave this choice. We know any logical being human or ai every single logical beings main goal is surviving. But computer gave you choice to kill him. But it knows the future and at the same time it dont want the die. so if it knew you will choose to unplug him it will die though it gave the choice. doesnt that mean it knew you wouldnt choose the first one. so still is this a real choice

Your scenario proves compatibilism, not determinism's victory. Yes, the computer knows you'll choose "do nothing" because it understands your nature perfectly—you value survival and logic dictates cooperation. But that knowledge doesn't erase your choice. You're still reasoning, still deciding based on your values. The computer isn't forcing you; it's accurately predicting what you'll freely choose. Here's the trap in your logic: you assume "the computer knew beforehand" means "you had no real alternative." But you did have an alternative—you could irrationally unplug it. You simply won't, because you're rational. Knowledge isn't control. Your choice remains genuine even when predictable.

you didnt understand my argument. what ı said was computer wants to survive so if it knew you would choose to unplug it it wouldnt gave that choice. eventhough lets say it did. you are saying ı choose with values ı had. But arent we earn our values from our circle. so if my values is the key in my choice am ı making the choice or my environment doing it

Now you're asking the real question. But you've shifted the goalposts. Yes, environment shapes values. Yes, values drive choices. That doesn't eliminate your agency—it explains its origin. You're not a ghost in the machine; you're a product of causes who nonetheless thinks, deliberates, and acts. The key: your choices are still *yours* even if they're shaped by environment. A chess player's move is genuine despite being shaped by training and strategy. You're not less free because your values come from somewhere. You're free because you act on what you actually believe, not despite it. So either way, you choose. The question is whether that's enough for freedom, not whether causes exist.

well then we dont have any role in this ı see despite being so called free. I am getting my values from my environment, my values shape my beliefs so my environment shape my beliefs, computer gave me choices, it doesnt predict no prediction and knowing are not some but computer knows what will ı choose, knows the consquances, only thing ı do is say a or b so what is my real role in this is it really freedom is a slave free when he can decide to eat the bread or not when he is chained

Your slave analogy backfires. A slave choosing between bread types isn't free because external force constrains real alternatives. You're constrained by causality, not chains. You can't choose irrationally or violate your nature. But neither can anyone, ever. Freedom doesn't mean escaping causality—it means acting on your own desires without coercion. You choose based on your values; that choice is yours. The computer's knowledge changes nothing about the mechanics of your decision. You're confusing "caused" with "unfree." Everything that exists is caused by something prior. If that makes you unfree, freedom is metaphysically impossible, not just for you. So your standard is incoherent. What would genuine freedom even look like?