Libertarian free will is false.

Thank you, wjmelements, for starting this debate. For simplicity's sake, I shall refer to libertarian free will merely as "free will." Hopefully, this will simplify the debate rather than confuse it. My opponent has set up a case that is essentially a proof for libertairan free will to be false. As it relies on every point in the case to be true for the final conclusion to be true, I merely need to attack one point to counter it. "-Matter and energy follow a certain set of regulations in their course." This isn't necessarily true. In quantum mechanics, for example, things behave seemingly randomly, with no set course at all. If such a derailment from my opponent's supposed rule can occur at the microscopic scale, it's also easily possible in the mind. http://en.wikipedia.org... "-Between these transformations in the condition of the life of matter, the behavior of matter in regard to the universal laws of physics does not change." This, also, is probably not true at all. There are extreme differences between living and nonliving systems. For example, take the concept of pain. When sensors on the skin send electric pulses to the brain through the nervous system, pain is suddenly felt, but how? There's no one molecule or atom that creates pain. When the signal reaches the brain, what does the brain do with the signal? It converts it into more and more signals, until what? Modifications in atomic arrangement don't cause feelings. Somehow, a physical construct converted a physical signal into an emotional one, something that nonliving matter can't do. Neurology tells us that the experience of pain "arises from the co-operation of a network of brain areas" [2], but these are supposedly just matter. How can the actions of matter create sensations? First, we start with a human being. If the human is stabbed in the hand, pain will be sent to the brain and interpreted as pain. Next, what if we sent pain signals to a brain kept alive in a laboratory, otherwise completely the same as a regular human brain? Would pain still be felt? What if we isolated only the part of the brain that interprets the pain signals? Would pain still be felt? What if we isolated a single neuron of that lobe? Would pain still be felt? Now, if pain cannot be felt in the less complex stages, this implies that there is some super-physical property of a complete and alive human. However, if pain can still be felt, this creates more problems in itself. If two separate parts of the brain are stimulated to create the sensation of pain, as the neurobiology article suggests, what happens if the parts are stimulated separately? If they both cause pain in the same mind, then this suggests some connection between the two biological subsystems that cannot be explained by the laws of physics. If they cause pain in different minds, then how did the same mind receive pain signals from both parts before? For a final thought experiment, consider trying to program a robot to feel pain. Sure, you could make the robot's artificial mind keep track of the levels of pain it is supposed to feel, and even react differently depending on the integer representation of pain; they could even show emotions as if they were in pain. But that's not really pain, no matter how many signals you have the robot send to itself. An emotional response simply cannot truly be programmed. The fact that we feel emotion and pain suggests a super-physical property of humans. This super-physicalness of humans that seems rather likely to be true would reject the notion that humans must act like non-living parts of the universe, which is a crucial part to my opponent's proof. Without that part, the proof collapses, and the resolution cannot be negated. Well, good luck with the next round, wjmelements. I look forward to your response.