From your own statements, Franko:
1. Atoms obey TLOP (or, A is less than T)
Agreed, no one argues this.
2. You are made of atoms (or, Y=A)
Here, we have a problem. While the statement is correct, the mathematical representation does not reflect the statement, and this is why it becomes a fallacy of composition. Y=A would mean you ARE an atom, not you are made of atoms. The correct mathematical representation, then, is Y>A.
3. You obey TLOP (or, Y is less than T)
Now, this conclusion is true, but not for the reasons your syllogism states. No one is claiming we do not obey the laws of physics (or, more correctly, that we are not constrained by the laws of physics). What people are trying to tell you is that your logic does not support this:
1. A is less than T
2. Y>A
3. Y is less than T
Statements 1 and 2 do not lead to 3.
A more correct syllogy would be:
1. You obey the laws of physics
2. The laws of physics are determinisitic.
3. You are deterministic.
Now, that would correct the logical fallacy; however, now you have the burden of proving that the laws of physics are indeed determinisitic, a matter that has not been settled in a long time, and which centers on certain debates about the various uncertainty principles.
Franko, your logic was flawed, even if the conclusion was valid. One should be willing to examine one's own arguments for logical error and fallacy.
Now, it's a rather simple and straightforward matter to prove that free will doesn't exist (if this is really what you want to do). You must first disprove dualism (because a spiritual or mental existence seperate or undetectable from the world we experience allows for the concept of a soul that allows free will) and to prove that TLOP is purely deterministic.
Several pages of several threads threads have been wasted arguing over that flawed syllogism, when it could have simply been corrected. Instead, several weeks or more have been wasted in a non-argument, and neither side has shared any views or provided any worthwhile information.
Hopefully you will take my corrections in the spirit in which they were posted (to move the argument along and, perhaps, make it productive).
Another tactic might be to ask everyone to simply accept, for the sake of your argument, that free will is an illusion and does not exist, then work from there to present your case. If you are interested in sharing your knowledge, this would be a far more productive path.
Taking an immediate adversarial attitude to anyone who points out percieved errors or asks for clarification will not lead to any sharing of knowledge, and is, I suspect, the main reason for your treatment here. This last paragraph is, of course, simply my opinion, but it is offered in good faith. I do hope you consider it.
Sincerely,
Huntsman
