I need to start by saying that I think the traditional definition of free will is having one's actions undetermined by fate or a higher power. Now on to what Andreas said. It's frankly hard to say if the dog actually has free will in the traditional sense. I'll agree that the dog has the choice to listen or not. However, we have no way of knowing whether or not that dog's choice was predetermined by fate or influenced by a higher power, since we have no way of knowing with absolute certainty whether either fate or any higher power exist.

Well I have to disagree on the last part. I do know God exists, or a higher power, as you refer to Him.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, the kind of knowing you refer to is different. There is religious "knowing" as in having no doubt that God exists, but I mean we can't just have a conversation with God and directly confirm His existence. Since we cannot do this, we don't know for sure that this is the traditional Judeo-Christian God that gave humans free will. In any case, I think that this means free will from God's control, but not necessarily from some kind of fate-type thing, if such a thing exists.

Well my God is omnipotent, and knows everything that is going to happen, He doesn't resist against that. So in a way, you can call this fate.

Besides, my kind of knowing is based on facts, they're just not your regular kind of facts. Just like my conversations with God don't go like conversations between humans. It's there for everyone, still lots of people don't see it (yet).

And this absolutely no doubt about His existance is not even half a year old.

Well... I don't know if "facts" is quite the right word... The definition of the word fact is to my knowledge a piece of information that can be proved or disproved. I'm sure you won't agree with me, but there are many parts of the Bible (and other religious writings) that can be neither disproved nor proved, as we cannot go back and see it happen. I'm not saying you're definitely wrong, but I don't really trust my fellow humans to keep things perfectly straight as far as things like religion are concerned. It might be silly, but I'd rather go on God's or an angel's word than on another human's.

To reply on the "free will" thing you discussed. Me, myself, as always, have my own opinion on this. I think that we're all partially controlled by God's will, but we also have enough of our own will to decide our life path. If we choose the one that leads away from God, he'll give up on guiding us. Anyway, if we choose the good path from the start, we can probably count on him to somehow, at least a little, guide our free will in right direction, but still letting us alone decide about simple things in life. My opinion on free will is that this term is a little bit less detailed and rough than yours.

The same is for the term "fate". We do probably have some kind of "written" fate, but it also has several solutions: one if we choose the path that leads to God and one if we choose the opposite. However, this fate doesn't describe and predict every single moment in our lives, but some rough sketches of it does.

Well I must admit that's an interesting way of looking at it.

I have my own way of looking at everything.

Here we have it again. Intuition to back up unprooved assumptions.
I could propably defend the view that trains are actually living being in charge of this world but because I don't have such arbitary assumptions I have no need of defending it.
My point is that by trying to think of ways how things could be in reality so that controlling god and free will could be compatible is not looking for the truth but looking for ways to defend the assumptions you already have.
The same thing with religion overall.


We all have. Every single one of us is a unique individual because we have grown in under different circumistances. The question is: Do people make culture or does Culture make people?

And yes that is essential to the idea of free will.

The Philosophical term would be truth value (I am not sure about the translation)
Agnostic way of thinking says that "God exists" has no truth value.
Atheistic person would say it has truth value since it's false.
Yet there are other things that don't have truth value like "hand over your money or I will shoot you"


Yes and that is just the Empirical side. Yet Rational thinking in this case won't lead us anywhere unless we believe in the illogicalities of Descartes or Leibniz.


Not necessarily.
Compatibilism fits Causal determinism with Free will.