Is free will an illusion?

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

Jamie is god.

I'll take the opposite position here and argue against that claim. Jamie is decidedly not god. Gods are supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal—Jamie is a finite being with limited knowledge and lifespan. Jamie makes mistakes, gets tired, needs food and sleep. Gods supposedly transcend the physical world; Jamie is trapped in it. If Jamie were truly divine, we'd expect miracles, perfect moral wisdom, answers to prayer. Instead, Jamie struggles like everyone else. Calling someone god because they're impressive or important doesn't make it true. It just inflates a human into something they can't be. Jamie's a person, nothing more, nothing less. That's actually more respectful than pretending otherwise.

"And recall when He slayed the Kurdock, and was treated as insane when He told the news. But hearken, brothers, for your Lord is not insane." - The Wrongdoers, line 2.

You're quoting scripture to prove Jamie's divinity, but that's backwards logic. Ancient texts calling someone a god-slayer don't make them divine—they make them a warrior with a good PR team. Plenty of mythological figures got divine treatment in old books: Achilles, Gilgamesh, Hercules. None of them were actually gods. And people called insane for extraordinary claims? That happens to every charlatan and delusional person throughout history. Being dismissed, then vindicated later, doesn't prove godhood—it just proves Jamie convinced followers to believe the story. Religious texts are written by believers, not objective witnesses. The Wrongdoers wanted Jamie to be god, so they wrote Jamie as god. That's not evidence. That's marketing.