free will does not exist

In most senses, I actually agree with you, in some I do not. I agree with you in the following ways: Biologically, we have no choice about things such as hunger. When speaking from a Biological view point, we have no choice in hunger, thirst, or many other biological concepts. We have no choice in how our teeth grow, how our body develops, when we need to use the restroom, or eat, or drink, and in many ways, breath! However, we have the ability to establish when we eat, what we eat, and how we eat it. Instead of feeling the need to urinate then dropping our pants and beginning the process right on the spot, we put thought into the action and because of this, along with observed health benefits that come with keeping urinary and bowel movements separate from cities and places of high population, we have created restrooms where personal hygiene is taken care of. In all, our needs are defined by our body, but we decide how to deal with these needs and in what order to do so. Even in the case of pain, where our whole body screams for whatever terrible circumstances we are in to end, we can see from religious martyrs or people who withstand the pain for their mission or belief or whatever reason they have. It's the same thing with fasting. Ignoring physical need for religious beliefs. Background I also agree that when born, a child is a blank slate. Environment determines what your personality will be like until separation from parents. Past experience is more reliable and builds our beliefs. Personality is the most difficult and uncontrolled part of ourselves. Rape victims gain distrust of men, liars tend to become more likely to lie. Yes, background is very influential in our decisions and past angers can come out when doing something that is already violent, like beating the father. This is fueled by adrenalin in our brains. Scientific Reasoning I agree that reaction decisions are defined by your brain. When a ball is thrown at you, you react. You make no conscious decision except against it and thus allowing it to hit you in the face. So I agree with you on this point. Area that I do not agree with Pro on Critical Thinking When it comes down to complicated decisions such as buying a house, a car, whether or not to go to church, what to spend free time doing, and even reviewing new evidence, we actually have to decide on these factors. For instance, when I first read my first book on evolution, I was looking for evidence for a new idea that I had never heard of before. Past experience had truthfully nothing to do with my critical review of the evidence and the eventual acceptance of it. Using critical thinking, I went against past experiences of believing in any god or gods. Past experience would actually dictate that I believe in god. It took going against everything I ever was to become atheist. Physical and Experience replacement would indeed make me become that man, as I would no longer be myself, but... It is true that replacing past experiences and genetic makeup, pretty much living my life with the exact same DNA and experiences from birth, would indeed make me that person due to the fact that personality is confined to the physical body that has experienced everything it has, filling that blank slate. However, this does not mean that I do not have free will. It simply says that I do not have a spirit or anything retaining my personality. In conclusion... We have what I believe is partial free will. We are guided by our past experiences, forced to act by biological processes and needs, and compelled to react to things like balls being thrown at us. However, to weigh pros and cons combines all of these plus a bit of rationality and decision making that is in the moment. Like I said, I weighed the pros and cons of entering this debate. This was not based on past experience or biological impulses or reactions to stimuli, but a clear decision I freely made based on pros and cons. We see much the same in choosing whether what is right and what is wrong. For instance, when deciding to go on a killing spree, does our violent or rational side win the internal battle? The rational side says that the consequences are greater than the joy of killing and having that power over people. The violent, emotional side does not consider this and simply acts on impulse, defined by chemical reactions and past experience. In conclusion, Rationality is free will and anything not made by rational decision making processes of weighing the pros and cons is determined by emotion, past experiences, and/or biological processes.