Free will probably exists in humans.

Thanks to my opponent for his prompt response. It is clear that Pro and Con both bear the burden of proof in this debate. In supporting the resolution I have only to prove that free will is probable, not that it is certain to exist. I have already made several examples of the likelihood of free will, most of which my opponent has avoided responding to. In contrast my opponent has categorically stated that free will is impossible but he has given no evidence to back up this assertion. Proving that one thing can be determined from another does not prove the impossibility of free will. Proving that a first cause was random does not prove the impossibility of free will. ------------ Con: " I am unclear as to whether "for every cause there are multiple possible outcomes" means that there are several outcomes that arise simultaneously, or whether it means that there are several possible outcomes, any one of which could occur." It can mean both; like randomness and free will, the two things are not mutually exclusive. ---- Con: "This in no way refutes my proof." I have seen no proof to refute, I was refuting what I felt was implied by your first argument. ---- Con: "They are more difficult to predict, and perhaps even impossible in practice, but are still theoretically predictable given all relevant information." I'm glad you agree about the difficulty of prediction, the point is that whatever you predict, Ben can choose to act differently. ---- Con: "But if an outcome is not predictable, it is random, and therefore not free will." There is no logic in saying if A is not B; it is C and therefore not D. Again, not mutually exclusive. ---- Con: "Former meaning: Refuted above." I must have missed this. ---- Con: "If there are multiple possible outcomes, then there is more information after the event than before it." I apologise that I cannot comprehend what you mean here. An event occurring surely creates new information? Are you using these words in some technical way I do not understand? ---- Con: "To put this more simply, imagine adding 2 and 3. 2 3 = 5. But what if 2 3 = 5 OR 6? This requires the creation of information; 2 3 alone cannot come up with 6." Humans behave somewhat differently to integers. Numbers are easy (ish) to predict because they have no free will or even sensory functions, humans are a little more complicated. ===== 2: First Cause. Con: "This is effectively the same as a random event (since it came out of nowhere and therefore had no influences), so it can be combined with point 3." So why does point 2 exist? First cause is an example of one random event, in no way am I disputing that random events occur. This is irrelevant to free will. ==== 3: Randomness. I accept that my initial statement: "when rational beings choose to behave in a random manner the only possible cause can be free will" was worded in a biased manner, but do not accept that "when rational beings act in a random manner the only possible cause can be free will." because I believe it may be possible for humans to act randomly involuntarily as well as by choice. --- Con: "my opponent has not shown how entities possessing free will are even capable of acting randomly while still maintaining control over decisions." I believe I provided a good example by showing that I can make a choice over what meal to eat, this is random in the sense that my decision is not pre-determined. Con chose to ignore this example completely. In terms of people committing completely random acts they do not need to have control in order to exercise free will. For example if a gunman randomly fires into a crowd he may have little control over who gets hit but he has still chosen to shoot. If I randomly mash my hand over the keyboard to produce the following:" ujazwora\wydchk " then I have little control over what random letters appear but I have still chosen to produce a random selection of symbols rather than conventional words and grammar. --- Con: "If information arises out of nothing, it is random. Information arising out of nothing may *seem* impossible, but it probably indeed does happen (in quantum mechanics) and is still an alternative to free will" I agree. It is an alternative, just like determinism. Neither proves the impossibility of free will. --- Con: "The only reason I bring up randomness is that it is the only possible alternative to determinism." This is not true and Con has not explained a rational basis for this opinion. ---- Con: "My opponent must show determinism to be probably false before the randomness argument even matters. " I disagree, I believe much (though not everything) to be pre-determined and don't see at all how this negates (or somehow defines) randomness or free will. --- Con: "Until my opponent shows that determinism is probably false, victory defaults to CON. Subsequently, if determinism is shown to be false, the only possible alternative is that events are random. At that point, these arguments become relevant." My opponent seems to be arguing from an almost faith based position, his assertions are not automatically correct. He has not proved that they are true, much less how they rule out the possibility of free will. It is up to the voters to decide whether my points are relevant to the likelihood of free will existing as I believe they are. --- Con: "If an outcome is selected randomly, the ultimate decision is not being made by the rational entity; the outcome would be random whether or not the entity was rational. It directly follows from the definition of free will that randomness is never equated with free will." The result of the action may not be controllable but the choice to act in a manner that produces the random result is. The definition of free will posted says nothing about controlling outcomes, merely about the capacity "to choose a course of action". It does not follow at all. ==== Con: "My opponent's examples are not true arguments. They are in fact already refuted: "I am prepared to accept the possibility that I am deluding myself." His observation that he is making choices is an illusion." It is a severe misrepresentation to hold this up as any kind of concession. The burden my opponent has given me is to prove the probability not the certain fact. Me stating the remote possibility that I may be wrong does not affect the probable alternative that I am right. As an agnostic I choose to remain open to all possibilities, however far fetched, which is one reason that this debate appealed to me. If my opponent wishes to seriously argue that my experience of free will is an illusion and base his theory that free will is impossible around it, then he will have to prove how every decision I make is actually not really my own. ---- Con: "It was not a free choice. My opponent merely was under the illusion that it was a free choice. However, I have proven that free choice is impossible, making this example and all other examples irrelevant." My opponent chooses to ignore my whole case on the grounds that I have accepted the possibility that I am wrong (despite his resolution stating I do not have to prove otherwise) and that his other (invalid) arguments prove otherwise. I do not think this is a strong argument or good debate conduct. Please extend my earlier examples of murder, choosing a meal, remaining a smoker and participating in this debate as well as the many further examples that can be inferred from these by applying common sense. My opponent has not "proven that free choice is impossible" he has merely stated it. --- When my opponent deigns to address the points I made in the previous round I will be pleased to refute the points raised by his source as they apply to this debate. Thanks. Pro.