free will without metaphysical

My opponent began with an implicit definition of free will. He said that free will cannot exist because the universe was deterministic. The implication is that free will equates to decisions that are not predetermined. I accepted that definition and refuted it, Modern physics shows that the universe is not deterministic, and moreover the laws of nature in our universe cannot function with a deterministic model. In other words, not only is the universe not deterministic, we cannot properly imagine it to be deterministic.Con made some inquiries and, I believe, ultimately conceded that my argument was correct. That conceded the debate base upon the definition of free will he had implied in his challenge. I don't think a debate can been won by changing definitions after the original ones were defeated, but, hey, we are here in the spirit of inquiry. Still, it is the instigator's responsibility to make a clear and meaningful resolution to debate. I suggested that free will is a type of process that embraced at least genetics, experience, and randomness as elements in the process. Saying that free will is a type of process does not define it well enough to debate. It's like saying that a cat is a type of animal. That's fine as far as it goes, but it's not enough to debate the nature of cats. In our case, free will being a process does not define the nature of the process.Con opined that free will is a "force." In the physical world, a force is something that causes objects to accelerate, like the force of gravity. So what is the analogy of that to free will? I don't understand and my opponent did not explain. We remain without a definition of free will.My opponent then argued that if free will is undefined, it "is more probable that freewill does not exist in a physical sense." This is amounts to claiming that if something is not understood, the best explanation is magic. Houdini, the great magician, performed amazing feats that no one could explain. He proclaimed, "It is all just tricks." Many in his audience heard that and said, "Wow, he is performing real magic and is trying to throw us off!" If Houdini's tricks are unexplained, is it probable they are magic? No, it's more probable that they fit within the laws of nature. The same holds for free will. We don't understand it, but in all probability it fits within the laws of nature.There are millions of scientists in the world. Each of them is working on a problem that is not solved. Each therefore has the opportunity to say, "I have not found the explanation, so chances are it is magic at work." No scentist does that, because we had great success in finding physical solutions to problems. Ancient peoples did not understand why volcanoes erupted, so they postulated a volcano god as the most probable explanation, and they imagined what might please the volcano god. They would have been better off leaving it unexplained, and still better off supposing there was an unknown physical explanation. I think the problem of subjective consciousness is similar to the problem of free will. We all have an idea of what it is to be conscious, but there is now no scientifically precise definition. Nonetheless, scientists are working on the problem and they believe they will solve it. Scientist Steven Pinker writes,"Although neither problem [of subjective consciousness] has been solved, neuroscientists agree on many features of both of them, and the feature they find least controversial is the one that many people outside the field find the most shocking. Francis Crick called it "the astonishing hypothesis"--the idea that our thoughts, sensations, joys and aches consist entirely of physiological activity in the tissues of the brain. Consciousness does not reside in an ethereal soul that uses the brain like a PDA; consciousness is the activity of the brain."http://blogs.uww.edu...It's not directly relevant to the debate, but saying that the laws of nature can explain free will and consciousness does not rule out the possibility of God. A religious commentator wrote. "In The Grand Design Hawking declares that understanding complex theories of physics makes it "[un]necessary to invoke God." Believers are in a tizzy over this statement, claiming that Hawking has dismissed God. Hawking has not dismissed God – he is staying true to the tenets of science by giving a scientific explanation that does not invoke God. Anytime we claim that something happened because God did it, we are giving a theological explanation, not a scientific one. It is good to acknowledge deity in science; it is not good to invoke deity in scientific explanations."http://www.mormonsandscience.com...The greater God would be one who need not continually intervene to set things right, but rather works through consistent laws of nature.If Con's implcit definition of free will made in his challenge is correct, then the Con's argument fails directly. If it free will is undfined, then it's more probable that a physical solution will be found than to suppose a metaphysical explanation. The resolution is affirmed.Thanks to Con for an interesting debate. I apologize for having missed the fourth round, but I don't think that had a significant effect on the debate as a whole.