Determinism: Free will is an illusion

For clarity, I will be defending my arguments in the same order that my opponent discusses them. First, regarding the argument about the subconscious, it is important to note that my opponent neglects to respond to the substance of the argument; rather he argues that the subconscious or unconsciousness of the human brain is still within our definition of "self". I will concede that the self is centered in the brain. However, this does not necessarily mean that we have full control of the self. My argument regarding the subconscious simply states that all actions of the self are determined by subconscious thoughts, of which we have no control over. Hence, even though the subconsciousness is part of the self, it is not a part that we can freely control. The implication is that we have no control of our wills. Next, regarding the causality argument, my opponent presents two examples. His first example, regarding going to the bathroom after a murder, argues that we can take random actions that are not caused by previous actions. However, this argument is flawed because he assumes I am only talking about one previous cause. It is true that my going to the bathroom has no relation to my committing a murder, but that action is still caused by my previous drinking of water, which in turn is caused by events further back. My opponent's second example discusses the human ability to ignore our impulses, such as choosing to ignore my hunger in the wake of more crucial needs. However, I would argue that this ignoring of hunger is simply an effect of other past events. Hence, even if we ignore one impulse, we are still acting in a way that is determined by past events, since these events influence our reasoning. The final argument I present is the argument from truth and falsity. This logical argument states that every event must either happen or not happen. My opponent misunderstands this argument and argues that we can never predict whether an event will happen or not. However, this does not matter. Take for instance, the statement "I will murder someone on Dec 16. 2007" Regardless of whether I know it or not, that statement must be true or false. In addition, the truth or falsity of this statement is determined regardless of time frame because of the nature of truth. An inherently true statement cannot become false. Thus, if the preceding example is true, then it is true today, tomorrow, or before I was born. Hence, I cannot be said to have freely chosen that action if that action was determined to happen years before I even existed. Regarding my opponents last notes, he argues that we can never know the past. However, I have shown logical and empirical proof that free will is flawed. My first argument shows experimental evidence showing how the conscious "choice" is in fact controlled by unconscious chemical actions in our brains, which we have no control over. The causality argument shows that the current state of the world is causally determined by past states, and the logical determinist argument proves that through the nature of language, the future is already determined from the beginning of time, despite the fact that humanity will never possess this knowledge.