Existence of Human Freewill

Apologies to Con. I missed where he indicated burden of proof would be shared.It is debatable which side usually takes the burden of proof, but it seems to me more reasonable that the one making the claim is the one who has the burden of proof, especially if the one making the claim is arguing against the status quo. I must commend Con; I didn't think it possible to argue against free will with a purely secular argument. However, it seems to me that free will is the default position. After all, ask almost anyone if they make choices freely and they will say yes. If you are going to show that the choices we make which appear to be free are, in fact, not free, you must show why they are not free.We make free choices all the time. If you set a candy bar and a piece of celery in front of a child and ask them to choose one, they will just about every time choose the candy bar. It is chocolate and tastes good. However, if you train your child to eat healthy things over unhealthy, they would eat the celery. The first would be an example of nature; the second, of nurture. But what of an adult who knows better but eats the chocolate anyway? They know the celery is better for them, but they can still indulge themselves in something sweet or choose a third option which you may not have even offered them. They may choose not to eat either one or go to Subway and get a sandwich. They have made the choice freely.If you give the child a choice between the chocolate and celery but tell them they'll be grounded for a week unless they eat the celery, this would be an example of coercion. If they eat the celery under duress, they are still making a free choice despite being forced into it. They are choosing to obey and be rewarded rather than disobey and be punished (and we all know that children do make choices which get them punished, even knowing full well they will be punished afterward).A Chain of ReactionsCon has tried to use science to prove his case but the reality of the situation is you can't use science to prove morality. Science can tell us that you just killed a human being, but it can't tell us that it was wrong to kill that human being. Only a standard of morality can do that, and humans have long argued over what is moral and what isn't.Con asserts that if random things occur in nature, then our actions are also random. This doesn't seem to add up. Even if you take God out of the equation and we are just the result of a random accident, our decisions are not predetermined. Humans have developed systems of morality, even contradictory systems of morality. If we are all a result of random processes and have no choice in the matter, we would all develop the same moral principles.Additionally, Con is asserting the Copenhagen of quantum mechanics but has not shown why the Copenhagen interpretation is superior over all other interpretations. It is merely an assertion that the wavefunctions are random, especially since there is a scientific principle of causality which says that nothing cannot produce something (that is, non-being cannot produce being).Paradigms and Other InfluencesI have already responded to nature versus nurture earlier in my argument. Our free will is not limited by our environment. For example, someone raised in a strict Christian household could grow up to become a devout Christian, but another child raised in that same household can grow up rebellious, upset at the strict upbringing she had to endure. Con even admits that free will is "limited", not negated altogether in his argument, then contradicts himself by saying we are left with no free will. He has not adequately proven that we don't have free will. Saying we have "some" free will is different from saying we have "no" free will.