Determinism is true while Free Will is a fallacy

Hi everyone,I would like to start by setting certain necessary criteria to properly evaluate this debate: We must all view this issue from a realistic, logical and rational perspective. We must put aside our assumptions, biases, presupposition and world views. This subject is related to the theism vs atheism debate (i.e. Does God exist debate). We must ignore our presuppositions. If you are going to make God exists as the premise, then the debate would be pointless. The same applies if you believe in determinism and therefore the premise would be the conclusion. Second, I'd like to state my approach in explaining why this argument is false: First, I'll not prove that free will is not a fallacy. Why? Because if determinism is true, it follows necessarily that free will is false. Also, it's an unfalsifiable claim. That means it cannot be proven true or false. I will focus on showing that determinism is false. One of the premises in Tyler's argument is "Every event must have a preceiding event causing it.". I'll focus on proving that this is false. And therefore Tyler's conclusion that determinism is true doesn't follow. Does every event must have a preceiding event causing it? I say no. Here's why. 1. Premise A: Every event either has a preceiding event or not (Null Hypothesis)2. Premise B: There is a finite number of past events. (i.e. Let E be a set of all events e(1), e(2), e(3) ... e(n))3. Now choose any event e(x) in the set of events. Using Recursive process (inductive logic)4. Does event e(x) have a preceiding event e(y)?5. If no - e(y) doesn't exist? then e(x) is an event without a preceiding event. End of proof.6. If yes - e(y) exists? then take e(x) out from the set of event. So now the size of set E is reduced by 1.7. Now make e(x) now be the preceiding event e(y)8. Repeat steps 4 to 8.After a maximum of n-1 iterations, and we still didn't find an event without a preceiding event, the size of set E will become 1. Now think of this for a second. If there's only one event left in the set, there are no other events that could precede it. Which proves my point that this final event will be an event without a preceiding event. End of proof.Conclustion: The logic above, if the premises are true, concludes that there must exists at least 1 event without a preceding event. There's no escape from this conclusion. (This is sometimes called: the uncaused first cause)To explain what I did above in layman's terms.. If you look at any event, and then go to its preceding event, to its preceding event, and so on... because there's a finite number of events, you will definitely and necessarily reach an event that doesn't have a preceiding event.The only possible challenge that you can have against this argument, is to argue premise 2. Specifically, what if there's a infinite number of past events? I will defend premise 2 below. Can there be an infinite number of past events? I say no. Here's why. When we say past events. These are events that have already occured. So to prove my point, I'll first assume that there is an infinite number of past events (Null Hypothesis) and show how that's impossible.Please note that infinity ∞ doesn't really exist. It's only a potential abstract concept. Many make the mistake that it's a number, and that's not true. Here are some peculiar properties of ∞: ∞ + 1 = ∞ ∞ x 786 = ∞ ∞ + ∞ = ∞ What's most important is that you can't say that ∞ = ∞, ∞ ≠ ∞, ∞ > ∞ or ∞ < ∞But there's another way to illustrate this in laymen's term. (This was illustrated by German's great mathematician's David Hilbert).Imagine that there is a hotel with an infinite number of rooms. And that the hotel was full. Every room was taken! Now someone comes to the hotel and says: "Excuse me. Is there a room for me?" The owner of the hotel will say "Yes of course!". How? Well, you ask the tenant of room 1 to go to room 2, tenant of room 2 to go to room 3...etc. Guess what! Room 1 is now vacant. Let's say that an infinite number of new tenants want to enter the hotel. The owner again will say "Of course! why not..." So he asks everyone in room 1 to go to room 2, room 2 to 4, 3 to 6...etc. Now all even numbered rooms have been taken, and all odd numbered rooms are available (Infinite of them)! Now the infinite number of new tenants have available rooms for them!What's even more insane, is that if there's another hotel, with also an infinite number of tenants. Which of the two owners have more tenants? Well.. it's neither more, nor less, nor the same.So basically, the basic laws of math fail with infinities. Because infinities are potential values, but can never be achieved. No matter how much you add to a number, you will never reach infinity.Since past events actually occured, then it's impossible that there is an infinite number of past events. Conclusion As you can see, I was able to demonstrate that there must exist at least one event which was not preceided by another event. Since I proved the first premise in my opponent's argument to be false, then his conclusion that determinism is true doesn't follow.On top of that, I ask you to think rationally. If there's an event that was completely uncaused (doesn't have a preceding event). How was that event determined? It can't be. Therefore, determinism is not true.