Refuting An Assumption About Free Will

If one listens to the way that Christian apologists characterize free will, it becomes apparent that they tend to regard free will as something that must be assumed in order for any epistemological framework to function.  Of course, this fits right alongside many other components of their claims, which also rest on alleged or actual assumptions (like conscience-based moral knowledge, for instance).  Free will does not have to be assumed, as it is easily demonstrable from basic truths.

As I have written about before, knowledge cannot exist without free will--without self-guided volition, a being has no true knowledge, as everything about its worldview formation is controlled by external forces.  There are many things that I know--with absolute certainty, might I add (which is required to have actual knowledge)--though they are very specific.  Here is a partial list of miscellaneous truths I can prove, at least five of which have been neglected by historical and contemporary philosophers:

• A thing is what it is (if a thing was not what it is, it would be something else--but that something else would only be what it is--logic is unavoidable and inherently true)
• Logic, both first principles and the laws of deductive reasoning, exists by absolute necessity in the absence of all other things (logic does not depend on any mind, material object, or other thing for its existence and veracity)
• I exist as a consciousness (perception on any level necessitates that I exist as a conscious mind that grasps the external laws of logic)
• I have sensory perceptions of specific external stimuli
• I have a body of some kind, though I do not know its appearance (I cannot feel physical sensations if I am only a consciousness, since consciousness is immaterial, and this is incapable of producing or experiencing physical sensations on its own)
• I know I am not dreaming when I am awake because I cannot contact any external objects if I am merely dreaming (a dream is only a series of immaterial mental images)
• My memory reliably feeds me information consistent with my perceptions of the external world (if my memory did not do this, I would be adrift in confusion about everything except for logical axioms and my immediate mental states)
• The present moment exists (there cannot not be a "right now")
• Time is strictly immaterial (it is an intangible duration, and thus cannot be made of matter)

It follows from my possession of this knowledge, as well as knowledge of other matters, that I must have free will, since I could not know anything without it.  No one has to assume anything.  The belief that assumptions are either necessary or good is a despicable error that is only assumed by people who want to cling to a preferred worldview irrespective of that worldview's verifiability or veracity.  It is not surprising that many Christian apologists defend assumptions: combating assumptions would mean abandoning many of their arguments and conclusions!

Awareness of my free will is as simple as awareness that my knowledge of logic, myself, and miscellaneous other matters requires it.  Evangelical apologists who represent free will as if we have to assume it exists, regardless of our metaphysical positions, and as if this assumption somehow legitimizes subsequent knowledge claims do a disservice to apologetics, and to broader philosophy as a whole.  Assumptions are never legitimate.  On the contrary, assumptions exclude knowledge, for one cannot know and assume something at once.

Just like I do not assume logic's existence or intrinsic veracity, I do not assume that I have free will.  I know I do.