[Corin Stormhands]

So, if you want to have libertarian free will, the second level act of will must itself be chosen by the will; we now have a third level act of will. Obviously, the same analysis applies to the third level act of will, and any more you might add. The acts of will go back in an infinite regression.

But what does any of this have to do with the price of matches in Geneva?

It appears to me to be just one more of those silly games of "logic" a couple of swarm members like to play. Games they say "prove their point" when they're so totally off base they make no sense.

And I'm sure they're all off on their private email lists having a jolly old laugh about ol' Corin not getting it (they've told me that's what they do).

But the fact is, ain't really nothin' here to get.

[A.J.Armitage]

In the first place, I was asked to re-present Edwards' argument, which is why I did.

In the second place, a game or not, unless the premises are false or the logical fallacious, the results of logic are infallibly true. So if you want to refute it, aim at the premises or the form the argument took, not at "silly games of logic". Otherwise you'll look like a snakehandling hick.