Does free will exist?

Can some one basically summarize the arguments FOR and AGAINST free will, and summarize the POSITIONS of those FOR and AGAINST free will? Thanks!

Determinism is the view that every event has a cause without which that event would not occur. Indeterminism is the view that Determinism is false. (that some events have no causes).

1. Hard determinism is the view that since human actions are caused, free will is false.
2. Soft determinism is the view that even if human actions are caused, there is free will.
3. Libertarianism is the view that human action are uncaused (undetermined) and so, there is free will.

Notice that both hard determinism and libertarianism hold that determinism is incompatible with free will, so both hard determinism and libertarianism are varieties of incompatibilism. That determinism and free will are incompatible with one another. But soft determinism is, on the other hand a compatibilist theory, and holds that determinism and free will are compatible with each other. Both soft determinism and libertarianism hold, as opposed to hard determinism, that there is free will, although for different reasons.

My basic objection centers around the notion
that an event may have a cause but not be determined?
That causality and determinism are not identical concepts?
Quantum events have causes but may not display determinism? This is not to say that quantum indeterminacy demonstrates free will; merely to note that causality and hard determinism anyway are separate concepts.

My basic objection centers around the notion
that an event may have a cause but not be determined?
That causality and determinism are not identical concepts?
Quantum events have causes but may not display determinism? This is not to say that quantum indeterminacy demonstrates free will; merely to note that causality and hard determinism anyway are separate concepts.

Determinism has nothing to do with cause, the world can be causally complete and not determined.

you are not using it as it is ordinarily used in philosophy.

On the contrary, it is you who doesn't use the term as it's used by philosophers or scientists. This has consistently been the case over the three or four years that I have known you, despite all efforts to correct your misunderstanding, so I will not be wasting any time on explanations, about this, for you.

"When the editors of the Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy asked me to write the entry on determinism, I found that the title was to be "Causal
determinism".
I therefore felt obliged to point out in the opening paragraph that determinism actually
has little or nothing to do with causation"
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00002071/01/Causality_and_Determinism.pdf

Are you saying that "determinism" is not used by philosophers the way I said it was used

Yes, and for the umpteenth time.

Well, you are wrong. The Cambridge Encyclopedia is evidence that you are wrong. And the source you cited is evidence (if it is evidence for anything) that at least one philosopher thinks that "determinism" should not be used to imply causation. It is not evidence that "determinism" is not used that way by philosophers. And the Encyclopedia I cited is proof that it is.

He quoted the author of one encyclopedia entry and you quoted the author of another.

But what he quoted is not evidence that the word "determinism" is not ordinarily used by philosophers to imply causation. It is only evidence that the person who wrote that article does not think it is properly used in that way. So that is an entirely different issue. All I maintain is that is how philosophers do use that term. Maybe they shouldn't (whatever that means). Meantime, I still don't know what he thinks it should mean.

I find this all a bit of a waste of time. Who cares how a term is ordinarily used? Either you understand how it's being used now or you don't. If you don't then ask for clarification. If you do then stop arguing about which word would be better suited and argue about what he's actually saying.

How it is used now by philosophers is what I call its ordinary use. I mean by that, its ordinary philosophical use (as I have already explained). U. denied this was true. He has no evidence, since what he cited is not evidence. The person he cited did not deny that the ordinary philosophical use of the word is connected with causation. You have to read more carefully.

I didn't say anything other than you've both quoted authors of encyclopedia entries. Which you have. But again, it doesn't matter. Stop wasting time with this pedantry.

What you said is that one source says one thing, the other a different thing.

Where did I say that? Either quote me or retract your statement. That's a lie.

Why then did you point out that there were two different sources? As a point of information. Not very informative. The obvious implication was that the two sources conflicted. And that, of course, is false.