Yes and I asked for clarity, and I provided some questions to guide you in the general direction of what I’m asking for. I’m still waiting, if you want to oblige, which you don’t have to.
Was that in the same opening post of this thread? If so, it’s what I’m asking for clarity on. If not, then I’ve missed it - my apologies - perhaps you can link it, or type it out again here as clearly as you can.
Again, can you link to or reiterate this disproof of absolute creationism/absolute Free Will? This is exactly what I’m talking about when you say you have all these proofs and I never see them, or at least if I do they aren’t clear. I seem to remember English isn’t your first language, but your lack of clarity sounds more like imprecise thinking than an issue with the language. “An absolute creative being or cosmos would solve at the limit of as the same as both absolute chaos as well”? What does this mean?? An omnipotent creator doing what it wants without restriction is absolute chaos?
Right, so you’re referring to Compatibilism as a general position, between any thesis and antithesis? All this time I’ve been assuming you were using it according to its normal use in philosophical discussion i.e. as an attempted synthesesis between Free Will and Determinism - especially since that’s what your thread title suggests you want to discuss. The term Compatibilism according with its accepted use in philosophy has nothing to do with chaos, since chaos counters both Free Will and Determinism. So in that sense, I am not talking about Compatibilism when I speak of chaos. But if you want to use the term more generally, please specify - again you’re lacking clarity if this is the case, then sure the notion of “order emerging from chaos” is a kind of “compatibilism” with a lower case “c”. But there is no contradiction between speaking of a relationship between Determinism and Indeterminacy, and speaking against Free Will or Compatibilism with a capital “C”.
Speaking of epiphenonena, Epiphenomenalism is one way in which a sentient being can be intelligent and still 100% subject to Determinism. To be clear, again I am using the term according to its accepted use in Philosophy. Even if there is a non-zero percentage of indeterminacy, that is not will - it is the opposite of will, if anything as I explained in my last post. Also, I wouldn’t be so quick to define the will as a stable concept.