There is no free will

Nice humor. I had a good laugh. I used no "faith", magic or watermelons to prove my argument. Use find on the first argument and you won't find any of this terms. I only made up the arguments not the facts.Unfortunately, you are Pro so you have the burden of proof.This means that I can win by bringing only defensive arguments. I did more than this. I brought offensive arguments. So to make things clear. You must show beyond reasonable doubt that there is no free will. I must show that there is reasonable doubt or that there is some free will - either of those negates your argument.DefinitionsFirst, Pro did not attack extension to the definition of free will; he must therefore accept that we are going to talk about degrees of free will that are affected by the amount of information available to the subject. I use the term free will as defined by Pro. Pro did not say we would debate about magic or watermelons being the cause of some events. Pro came forth with an hypothesis (universe = deterministic + random). I showed that an alternative hypothesis is more probable. It is not a matter of this debate (and it is a red herring form Pro) if a third hypothesis with melons explains the universe even better. Even if that were the case, Pro's argument would still be flawed because he would not have a bifurcation (deterministic/random) to begin with. I like how I pointed out a false bifurcation and Pro comes up with another:Free will is either subject to the laws of the universe or is not. Pro may seem that he is applying logic here; but he is not.If we would have applied the same logic to waves and particles we wouldn't have a very good model to describe the universe now. What if free will (and it seems to be the case) is subject to some laws of the universe but it is not subject to others. This is very probable since humans act according to initial causes sometimes and sometimes they don't. For example they act like irrational or they act rational or a combination of the two. Pro's bifurcation does not take this into account and for this reason creates a poor model to explain the universe. ArgumentsI am not sure what Pro is trying to show. He starts by showing that a phenomena cannot be predicted with 100% precision then states that we need more calculating power. If humans can't be predicted, than there is no proof that they are deterministic. In fact, the weather pro speaks about can't be predicted for more than 7 days (and sometimes even tomorrow is unsure) precisely because some guy uses his free will to start a fire in some forest and this destroys any prediction. Chess is even simpler and deterministic and not even the most advanced computer can predict the moves or the outcome of the game. The problem becomes nightmarish if you let the people know they are being observed.I think that what is important from Pro's argument is that the brain is " just a very complex system, some super advance computer hardware+software". This is wrong and it misses the entire point about humans being able to learn. I you use something (superior computer) to predict human behavior and the human finds out about that you are back to square one. This relates to the fact that free will is related to the amount of information available. This can go on and on and it is the reason that new manipulation techniques must be invented all the time. As human knowledge expands it is even harder to predict human behavior. By induction [1] human knowledge will expand more that it is physically possible to predict. If this induction and our intuition show that it is not possible to predict a human than it is a larger leap of faith to assume that the human is deterministic/random than to conclude that the human has free will. Free will better explains the reality.My argument is not based on faith - why does Pro bring up faith?. It is based on an expanded definition of free will and an argument that was never addressed - the fact that humans learn. For now it is a smaller leap of faith to believe in in free will.Topic negated.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...