It is more plausible that Free Will exists, than Determinism

The notion that people are not in control of their actions is not a popular one. One of the famous dialogues of The Matrix went like this:Morpheus: Do you believe in fate, Neo?Neo: No.Morpheus: Why not?Neo: Because I don't like the idea that I'm not in control of my life.However, we as a society are generally eager to make conclusions based on this premise. For example, defense lawyers will sometimes argue that their clients aren't totally responsible for their actions because they "had a bad childhood" or "have a genetic predisposition" towards violence. Here's one example:http://villagenews.com...We're eager to accept the premise that bad upbringing makes criminal activity more likely. Likewise, liberals like to claim that Trump can't be credited for his high net worth because he was born into wealth, even though he apparently only received "a small loan" of a million dollars which he eventually turned into billions. So we're willing to accept determinism in certain situations, mainly when it suits some sort of political agenda. In this debate I'm going to argue for the logical conclusion of this reasoning, which is that no human action is really free (that is, freely chosen instead of predetermined by an abstract force, be it referred to as "fate", "scientific laws", "destiny", "divine will", etc).Point #1: An appeal to rationalismEvery phenomenon in the Universe can be explained by natural causes. Lightning can be explained. Planetary orbit can be explained. Behavioral patterns of animals can be explained. Humans are a part of this Universe and are subject to the same laws of the Universe as everything else. Therefore, if humans are composed of purely natural substance (i.e. no "soul"), then the only logical conclusion is that our actions are predetermined by the laws of nature.That being said, the human brain is an extremely complex instrument. Predicting the "choices" of a man are nearly impossible because it's seemingly random.Another supposed example of randomness is the double pendulum. Here's a video of one in action:https://m.youtube.com...Looks totally random, doesn't it? But we all know it really isn't. We accept that, while its trajectory may be too complicated to predict, it could in theory be predicted with perfect accuracy, just like a dice or a flip of a coin, which seems to have a random outcome, is in fact predictable (In fact, my younger brother seems to have learned how to flip a coin and know what side it's gonna land on). Human thought processes are near infinitely more complex than a double pendulum. However, we aren't exempt from this same principle, since we're subject to the same universal laws as the double pendulum is.Imagine that you put a man in a magic room. The temperature of the room is constant. The level of lighting is constant. The noise level emitted by forces other than the man is constant, and it's always the same thing. Under these conditions, provided that an outside monitor had a planet-sized supercomputer, was able to scan the exact initial thought processes of the man upon entering the room, how he would perceive and experience his surroundings and what kind of effect these experiences would have on his thought processes, and the sum of all his past experiences and thought processes, could theoretically predict his every action. That's determinism.Of course, it's more complicated than that. Humans are not trapped in a room. They're trapped on a gigantic spherical object known as Earth, which is acted upon by other stellar bodies such as the sun, the moon, and the solar planets and the stars which are visible from the Earth from time to time. Each extremely complex person acts upon another and another and another, just like a billiard ball bouncing around hits other billiard balls and causes them to bounce around. Furthermore, there are microscopic variables affecting the experiment (for example, when your blood's flowing through your body a single blood cell might get lodged somewhere, which could through the butterfly effect end up having profound effects on your body). So predicting it all is truly impossible. It's unpredictable in the sense that there's too much to predict, not that predicting it would contradict the laws of the Universe.Point #2: An appeal to Religion:Many religions, such as Christianity, say that humans have a soul, which means that we are not purely natural beings. However, this simply means that, if the natural Universe is a closed system (which it isn't 100% since the supernatural must be acting upon this world to some degree through natural human beings having souls and having supernatural experiences), it is contained within a larger supernatural universe, which in turn must be a closed system. Somewhere up the "chain" it must become a closed system, after which everything inside, all the way down the chain, could theoretically be predicted. You're simply adding complexity to the equation, but it's still an equation.Furthermore, the world's three Abrahamic religions agree that human will is subject to God's. For example, Jesus predicted that Peter would deny him three times "before the rooster crows". If Peter really had a choice in the matter, would Jesus really have made that prediction and possibly end up having been contradicted by the facts? Would he not rather have said, "Before the rooster crows, three situations will arise that will tempt you to deny me"? On another occasion, He predicted that, had He preached the Word in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, they would have repented.In Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, God is omnipotent and omniscient. A being who knows everything would know not only what has been and what will be, but also the outcome of any contingency imaginable, meaning God is not omniscient simply because He "looks" into the future through His omnipotence.Point #3: Deconstructing a ChoiceMy name is Dirk. I can't decide between ice cream or cake for dessert. The cake would be sweeter than the ice cream, but cake doesn't come with that same cold sensation as ice cream. At this particular moment, my body wants sweet more than cold. Just going by this it would be illogical for me to choose ice cream over cake. There's no good reason to assume I would get ice cream just based on this, as I think anyone would agree. However, let's say that there's a variable. There's one piece of cake left and my little sister really wants it. At this moment I am influenced by altruistic sentiments (my susceptibility to such being determined by prior factors and life circumstances), which override the stronger desire for cake and result in me picking ice cream. It does not mean that, in choosing the dessert I wanted less, that I exercised free will. This is an extremely simplified formula for a very simple choice, but all choices can be reduced to scientific/mathematical equations. Math problems have objective, not subjective answers. You cannot choose for 2+2 to equal 17, and people cannot choose for the equation to have a different outcome than the mathematically sound one.I await my opponent's response.