Free will

[quintessentone]

Well your asking me to answer the unanserable from my prerspective. I am not God. The answer I think would be like in ones brain and / or ones soul if you belive in Spirituality. I really cant answer your question. Might your try Google AI? Heres Google AI's response:

Navigating the complexities of free will within the context of a structured society is a fascinating and long-standing philosophical debate. It boils down to understanding how individual agency interacts with the constraints and influences of external forces and the will of others. 
Here's a breakdown of the key considerations:
1. Choices within a structured society
Even within a society with norms, rules, and power structures, individuals constantly make choices.
These choices might be as simple as what to eat or wear, or as complex as career paths or relationships, according to Psychology Today.
The crucial question is whether these choices are truly free, or if they are largely determined by external influences like upbringing, social conditioning, available resources, and the expectations of others. 
2. Agency and social structure
Social structures, encompassing laws, policies, organizations, and cultural norms, undeniably influence and shape individual agency.
For instance, poverty or limited access to education can restrict an individual's options and opportunities, thereby limiting their agency.
Conversely, social and economic resources can expand an individual's potential choices and agency.
The relationship between structure and agency is dynamic and reciprocal: structures influence individuals, but individuals also have the capacity to shape and change social structures, according to the Brookings. 
3. The "Free Will vs. Determinism" Debate
This fundamental philosophical debate explores whether our actions are truly self-determined (free will) or are predetermined by external forces and prior events (determinism).
Determinists argue that free will is an illusion, suggesting that our choices are the inevitable result of factors like genetics, environment, and societal influences.
Libertarians, conversely, assert that individuals possess true free will, emphasizing our capacity to choose otherwise, regardless of prior conditions.
Compatibilists offer a middle ground, contending that free will and determinism can coexist. They argue that freedom lies in acting according to one's own desires and intentions, even if those desires are themselves influenced by external factors. 
4. Free will as part of the whole
If one embraces the concept of free will within the social structure, it suggests that individuals contribute their own choices and perspectives to the collective fabric of society.
This perspective emphasizes the potential for individuals to initiate social change, challenge norms, and shape the future through their decisions and actions.
However, recognizing the influence of societal structures and the will of others on individual choices is crucial, as it highlights the interplay between individual autonomy and collective influences. 
In conclusion, understanding free will within a structured society requires acknowledging both the individual's capacity to make choices and the influence of external factors and the will of others. The philosophical and scientific debates surrounding free will versus determinism highlight the complexities of this relationship and its implications for human behavior, morality, and social responsibility. 

Within a structured religious community the answer is clear, there is no free will if one is compelled or chooses to follow the script.

Within a societal framework where randomness may be injected, then perhaps in some instances.

I think the answer lies within each of us due to our individual and connected experiences and biases.

[Waterglass]

Within a structured religious community the answer is clear, there is no free will if one is compelled or chooses to follow the script.

Within a societal framework where randomness may be injected, then perhaps in some instances.

I think the answer lies within each of us due to our individual and connected experiences and biases.

I agree

[andy06shake]

Thats what I was told plus men wrote the bible. Plus it was translated by other men. So how do you know that people on earth isnt a 50 / 50. Doesnt it seem that criminals always have the upper hand in all facets of life.  That includes the Catholic Church. Nothing is impenetrantable from evil on earth. 

I suggest you discuss with a priest

It's true humans wrote and translated the Bible, but many scholars study ancient texts to trace consistency.

While evil exists everywhere, even in institutions, good also prevails.

Criminals may seem dominant, but justice, empathy, and resilience persist.

People who live by the sword often die by it or face other consequences.

Life isn't 50/50, it's a complex and unfair, not evenly split between good and evil.

As for priests, I don't think they know much about life, which might be why they choose a profession behind the cloister and collar.

Their lives typically involve dedication, discipline, and service.

From what i can gather from other sources.

[Bootless]

The free will rabbit hole...

22 Examples of Free Will - Simplicable

After all I've read so far, I am still holding strong to the belief that we have free will some times, but not at other times. 

Self-exploration as to why one does or choose what, where, why and when may assist in at least giving one an insight on one's motivations, influences, desires, emotional needs, etc. that steer one's free will in certain directions.

Now I or we have the problem of defining consciousness as related to the metaphysical and the quantum world and we all know where that ends up.

Rabbit holes!!!

Sorry in advance. This may be a long response. 

How far a person seeks to pursue the delving of the rabbit hole is probably determined by what they desire to seek. The drive to reach certainty about something.

Take me for instance: Nihilist. Absolutely no belief that an individual survives his or her death. Within 80 years or so no one living will remember me as an individual person. That's a small time span to reach total annihilation of my self. More over, being pessimistic, the whole human race will end before colonizing any other planet (based on my own observations of the present trajectory of society) I give it about 300 years to reach a critical choke point (when humans may be considered an endangered specie).

But!!! And this is a major but, I suffer a diagnosable condition known as Survivor guilt. Why? I don't know, I just do. It's probably an inherited human trait concerning empathy and the sense that survival of others is super important.

Survival guilt can be and often is fatal. 

137 dead and 3 still missing in Texas flood; a rather public genocide grinding away before our eyes. Why am I alive? Chance? Determinism? Because I had no control of when or where I was born? What can I do to stop this? Anything? Nothing?

So for me, it's a matter of life or death. Even though, in the end, it won't matter to me at all.

How far must I go? Must I become the World's top neurologist, or the cutting edge researcher of quantum mechanics, nuclear physics, theoretical physicist and mathematician, simultaneously? No. Those are quite out of my reach. I actually notice my own cognitive decline.

So what do I do to satisfy my rabbit hole quest to understand the free will vs determinism question once and for all?

An argument from authority 
is a form of argument that relies on someone's authority as evidence, regardless of whether they have relevant expertise.
Since even an expert opinion, if lacking evidence or consensus, is not sufficient for proof, the argument from authority can be, and often is, an informal fallacy, and obtaining knowledge in this way is fallible.
[sup]...[/sup]
InductiveWhen used in the inductive method, which implies the conclusions can not be proven with certainty, this argument can be considered a inductive argument the general form of this type of argument is:

Person(s) A claims that X is true.
Person(s) A is an expert in the field concerning X.
Therefore, X should be believed.[sup][11][/sup]

Inductively it can be used in a cogent form if all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the cited authority in the given context.

Argument_from_authority

   
If all sides agree. Guess what? For my purposes, It's just me, myself, and I who must agree.

1) Person A (Joe Folley) claims that compatibilism is a reasonable compromise.

2) Joe Folley exhibits freaking mad ​​​reading comprehension in the field of Philosophy. He has read books I'll never get around to. And he understands the arguments in depths that I can never approach.

3) Therefore: I can accept, that as far as my limited understanding seems to coincide with what he's saying that yes, that seems to be it.

That's good enough for me.

In case you are worried about me. I have had mental health counseling, and I've heard all the platitudes (eg not your fault, nothing you could have done, and etc.)

There's an old definition that I just made up: 

Platitudes: Pat little remedies for life's major dilemma-ties.

[Sirius]

the universe is a machine. You are AI. There are caretakers, administrators if you will, moderators. When they make changes super natural events occur. there are gateways to different simulations you can find them at the old places Send us a message if you make it through.

[Maxmars]

... Send us a message if you make it through.

That might work if it is a planned transition...

Might.

I fear we would be toxic to those 'other' realms.

[Sirius]

That might work if it is a planned transition...

Might.

I fear we would be toxic to those 'other' realms.

As above so below, the IT guys are all overpaid and on drugs