Mind was the last thing to come into existence

I'm going to start with some basic definitions. The universe is everything. Energy is everything that is not matter, and includes forces. Matter is something that occupies a finite amount of space, and includes dark matter. Life is any collection of matter on planet Earth that is arranged in such a way as to enable self-sustaining biological processes. Consciousness, what my opponent terms "Mind", is the additional ability of lifeforms to make decisions based on observed phenomena. My overall argument is that what my opponent terms "free will" is not free, though it may appear to be. This is another debate where I don't think we should bother with sources as it is philosophical in nature. You will note that all of these things rely on the previous to exist. Without energy there could be no charge and thus no matter. Without matter there would be nothing to form life. Without something that enables us to think, we can have no consciousness. Therefore prima face my opponent's assertion that there can be consciousness without energy, matter and life, within the context of this universe, is absurd and requires some justification. The conventional model seems to fit much better with our understanding of existence. Asserting a "transcendent underlying conscious force" does not at all solve the problem because, as a force, it must behave predictably, and cannot exist without energy - besides which there is no evidence for it - so it will not win you this debate. To justify his assertion that consciousness comes first, my opponent notes a conscious observer of free will cannot enter a closed chain of cause and effect. Two responses. My minor response is that there is no reason why it cannot. There is no reason to suppose that a closed chain cannot establish an open chain, and if you have proof of the contrary I'd like to see it. My major response is that free will is an illusion. Say my computer mouse dies. I have a choice - replace it, or use my touch-pad. So now you'd say I have free will to choose which option I pick, right? Wrong! About 100 or so factors come into my head - different desires, wills and memories - all with a different weighting of importance based on other desires, wills and memories. Ultimately the fact that I have only $2.50 in my bank right now (which is true) will hold greater importance than all else, so I will use the touch-pad. I will think that I have made that decision. In fact, given a table of all my relevant experiences and the relative importance I assign to each, it would be entirely predictable. Therefore we are still a closed system. Does this mean human behavior is exactly predictable? In theory yes, but in practice, no. First the full configuration of the human mind has not been mapped yet, preventing us from testing theories about the relative prominence of desires and wills in our thinking, but more importantly preventing us from discerning relative importance weighting. Second, it is near-impossible to extract ALL the experiences of an individual. However, the behavior of people can often be known. We often make judgments about how we think others will react. Ask any chess player, business leader, politician, or even entertainer. Of course we very occasionally get it wrong, either because we don't know how others minds will assign relative importance, or more likely because we don't know what motives and experiences drive others. For all you scientists out there, I know my analysis is too simplistic. It's the best I could fit in the word limit. But even if you don't believe in my theory that we are still a closed system (shared by many eminent scientists, by the way), recall that in this debate, my opponent still needs to justify why we are now an open system.