THB: free will does not exist

The only way to dismiss the claim "free will does not exist" is to convincingly argue the claim "free will does exist". If it were the case that whoever is making a claim has the BOP, then we both have eaual BOP. However, this is not the case, as the default is disbelief- we assume free will does not exist until it is demonstrated that it does, just as we would do for unicorns, tachyons, or any other entity.On Con's attempted rebuttal to [P1]- it is absolutely true that no immaterial soul has been convincingly demonstrated to exist. Once again, the default is not to believe in the existence of souls unless Con can demonstrate, in a way that would convince a religiously non-specific audience, the existence of an immaterial soul. [P1] stands unless Con can prove the existence of souls.Mental processes are processes which happen within one's brain, and hence are physical properties as the brain is a physical entity. [P2] stands.[P3] does not assume that we do not control our environment- only that we would have to have free will in order to be able to do so.[P4] seems axiomatic- we do not have any control over where we were born."We still make choices of how we eat, diet and exercise which alter our bodies."All of these are environmental factors- the food we consume and the amount of exercise we do are categorised by my definitions as environmental. Even if we feel the need to distinguish these and give them a separate category, [P3] is still true of them- we cannot be said to control the food we eat unless we already have free will, and we would have to have free will in order to be said to control the food we eat. This is an infinite cycle which can only be broken by a point at which we axiomatically have free will or axiomatically have control over the food we eat, and neither can be shown to be true as, as argued in [R3], we do not have things at birth and cannot conceivably gain them without already having them.Con is appealing to naive intuition- we feel as though we have free will because we make decisions. However, the results of these decisions were predetermined (as argued above) and so we aren't really choosing anything because we couldn't conceivably have chosen otherwise- the result of our decision was predetermined by factors outside of our control.Since our emotions and the results of the decisions we make are predetermined by factors outside of our control, we do not have free will."over 75% of the world believes in free will."This is a bandwagon fallacy. See source 4. This is then followed by a BOP reversal. The BOP is not on whoever challenges the status quo, but on the positive claim- the truth value of any major world religion is a positive claim, and so the BOP lies with the religious. Even if we were to accept consensus as a sensible way to settle this, the vast majority of people do not believe in the truth value of any given world religion- most people worldwide are not Christians, for example."This statement is only true if you presuppose atheism and evolution together. Presuppositions are unscientific by definition. Therefore, to say Free Will does not exist is unscientific."Firstly, you do not have to assume atheism to be true to follow my reasoning- it is as true under a theistic worldview provided one accepts that the soul was created by God and we had no control over the creation of our soul. That just puts "soul" next to "genetics, epigenetics, and environment" as another thing we do not have control over. The reasoning stands just as strongly.Secondly, as atheism is not a positive claim, but rather the absence of theism, it is the default position and so is to be assumed in the absence of compelling evidence.If, at this point, you remain unconvinced, I ask that you read my first argument one more time, as I recognise I presented some complex logic which may be difficult to follow.Sources:4: http://www.softschools.com...