Mind was the last thing to come into existence

Dealing with all of my opponent's appeals to uncertainty: 1) This is another logical fallacy 2) This is not an argument, nor does it rebut mine 3) Even if you were right, it is only helping my case, because under a strict interpretation of the topic, if the point is moot it falls to me. 4) You can't just assert alternatives and expect them to instantly have the same scientific validity, or even to contradict, the null hypothesis, without further evidence. Dealing with "higher consciousness": 1) It's an appeal to uncertainty at best 2) The accounts of meditatiors is the most unreliable because any who do not claim to have the highest level of mental ability will not attract as many customers as those who make the claim, even if said level does not exist. Their life depends on their lying in your cited book. 3) The conclusion you reach, that consciousness could be like a force, does not logically follow from the premise that there is a higher state of consciousness. Dealing with the Quantum Experiment: 1) Your conclusion is based on a flawed understanding of our dimension and particle physics. Electrons, like everything, exist in space and time. Quantum Mechanics tells us that they can "leap" in both - that is, time travel or teleport (by virtue of this fact, they can even exist in two places at the same time (entanglement)). The electrons may show the illusion of awareness, but in reality they are not aware, only behaving as any particle that moves both backwards and forwards in time at once. From the formulated pattern they go back through the slit, just as they come out of it to build the observed pattern. Note: no consciousness. This is not me making up a theory by the way - this has been reported in scholarly peer-reviewed journals and even New Scientist. 2) The above is a better explanation than mind because again, mind, just like life, requires matter (plural) - not a single particle. 3) Even if electrons had a "mind" behind them, that does not prove "higher consciousness" or even provide evidence of it directly. Buffing my no-free-will argument: 1) My opponent asserts a lack of proof. This is a) an appeal to uncertainty, and b) ignorant of the evidence I presented in round 1, that we make reliable judgments about reactions often. 2) What compelled me to join this debate? Many things spring to mind: a) the fact I love debating b) the fact that I like more theory-driven debate c) the fact that I like debates about the nature of existence d) the fact that, after reading your opening argument, I knew exactly how to respond e) the fact you are somewhat new to this site . .. Weighing against this, too, were a number of factors (ie the fact I have law exams in one week! ) 3) None of the above is actually an attack on the no-free-will argument. 4) If my opponent really does act unpredictably, not going on any sort of compulsion - why did he join this site? The chance that he came across it randomly and, without any sort of influence whatsoever, moved his hand to the correct positions to start several debates - without even thinking he might want to debate - is so remote I doubt even my opponent could give a figure. Also note how my opponent has dropped the closed-open system argument. I hope this is because it's so flawed it's not even worth mentioning again. This debate is now, apparently, about whether there must be a higher consciousness. I've given you good unrebutted evidence that the most fundamental assumptions of this "higher consciousness" are incorrect. My opponent has only said "Oh, but it MIGHT be true. " That won't win him the debate.