The notion that free will does not exist.

In debating I will address each of your points starting with your first one and moving down, I don't know how others debate here but this round will not be a fluid paragraph, simply my reaction to your arguments. To the contrary it is impossible to know what someone is going to do before they do it, because every second leading up to those options would push their hand this way or that. I will expand on your "Bob" scenario. You question which one he will "choose" if I told him that he's going to press let's say blue but should press red. Well let's consider in his history that he had a rebellious streak and hated authority so he chooses blue because he doesn't want others telling him what he should or should not do. Now on the other hand let's suppose he was a well disciplined soldier that was trained to do whatever his commander told him to against all odd which one do you think he would choose? The problem is that determinism is so complex and that there are so many factors that you yourself can't know which way your hand will be pushed until the option is picked, in some cases. In others it is more clear which side you will be pushed to. However, the person will always know right before the decision is made which side he will be pushed to. There could and probably are millions of causes in Bob's life that pushes him one way or the other. The point is that every "choice" you make is determined by your past experiences, genetic predispositions, and current state of being (mind and body). I don't think that the scientific community knows enough about quantum physics to be able to make that assertion. Whenever science was in it's earlier stages we thought that spontaneous combustion was an accurate theory for why certain things would suddenly go up in flames, now we know better. Same could be true here, your "randomness" may end up to not be truly random once we figure out what the universe is truly made of and how it's components actually work (string theory, worm holes, et cetera). The problem you outline is a common one that people fire back whenever this idea is being discussed. The fact of the matter is that no you are not truly responsibly for your actions and in all cases you are justified for doing them. However, law enforcement and society would be equally justified in putting you in prison or showing you how your past experiences made you in their mind "wrong". The justification goes both ways. Even though you are justified in killing someone I am in turn justified in throwing you in prison for the good of society. In this way the penal system is not bothered in the slightest. That's simply not the case. You seem to be going with a one way or the other mentality. You by default have no choice. You are subject to the same cause and effect that the rest of the material world is subject to because you are simply that, part of the material world. People with tourettes or addictions simply have another cause to determining their decisions. It is a bigger cause than most others but itself falls into the extremely long list of causes that determine our decisions. In response to your responses: I am not saying that this theory is the only one or that because it exists in science that free will must not exist. We could go either way on this, I simply think that it is the best theory because it is verifiable and demonstrable where as free will I believe is not. If you would like reasons look to yourself. Why are you here debating me right now? Did you grow up in a home where reading was encouraged and you became enthralled with philosophy as I did and this is an outlet for your ideas and perceptions on life? Think about your decisions and I can guarantee that there was not one point in your life that you were able to put all your past experiences and current state of mind and body aside and make the "choice". All of those things were considerations and eventually one side one. I know that's how all my decisions were made, weren't yours the same? That's true, it is a bit of circular logic if you accept "choice". I personally do not but I should have been wise enough to know that others might not feel the same. However, looking in the material world it is impossible to find complete randomness. Everything is a reaction to something else(s), am I right? To say otherwise would be akin to saying a ball chooses to roll down a hill instead of the fact that gravity, the force parallel, et cetera pushed it down the hill. You are simply the tool of determinism and thus must be subject to it's design. Again I'm not saying that my theory is absolutely certain, simply that it is the best choice. It stays to one law whereas free will makes too many presumptions. Refer to my "Bob" scenarios. I'll try to hurry it up, but these things take time, if we don't finish by then we could exchange emails and finish at a later time.