Haha yeah fair enough. I tried to ask for vagueries…
Right right, okay. So one thing you will need to pretty much immediately accept (despite your resistance, it seems) is that everyone here, and most people, have done this. There is a plethora of work from all angles on this topic ranging from purely theological positions, to crazy, speculative science-fiction type ones.
That said, your positions are not entirely uncommon, other than nihilism. Hard determinism is often times cloaked by other things. I’m guilty of this: my intuition is strong that free will obtains in some way (obtain=exists/is the case/manifests) but every time i look into it, i am drawn to a hard determinist conclusion. The only saving grace, as mentioned by others, is QM. I don’t quite know enough about Qm to really speak to that, but there may be an example of true randomness there. It would be extremely - and I mean extremely - disconcerting if the coherence of the world was borne of any significant randomness. Again, though, I don’t know enough. Maybe that’s not actually what QM is saying and hard determinism is still live. It’s quite hard for me to say. But that’s an example.
My suggestion, along Banno’s lines, but constructive rather than critical, is take some time to get interested in these topics, read through some of the key historical writings and come to some conclusions with benefit of much smarter, and probably much dumber, people working on the same issues for lifetimes.
Where you say no one can come up with good arguments, I can see in this thread that several have. But you are not moved. This is perhaps why I thought that question important.
They too must’ve argued between themselves and with their associates/friends and even random peeps.