The notion that free will does not exist.

Addressing point by point... "To the contrary it is impossible to know what someone is going to do before they do it, because every second leading up to those options would push their hand this way or that." Difficult, yes, but you suggest that theoretically some algorithm would be able to do this. Unless you're changing your position and now concede we have something determinable after the fact but not before? "Well let's consider in his history that he had a rebellious streak and hated authority so he chooses blue because he doesn't want others telling him what he should or should not do. Now on the other hand let's suppose he was a well disciplined soldier that was trained to do whatever his commander told him to against all odd which one do you think he would choose?" If the spectrum of preferences could be expressed in such a neat dichotomy, they could have arisen from the sort of conditioning you suggest, but you admit human will is more complicated. A rebellious person may choose red because he thinks you're secretly trying to make him pick blue by suggesting the opposite. Or he may think that choice is precisely what you're trying to make him think, so he takes it a step further and goes back to blue. Nothing can then predict where he'll end this chain of logic. It's not enough to say, "No one knows why he chose this, therefore there must be an unknown cause." If anything, wouldn't it be simpler (since you like the simplest solution) to say, "I don't know why he chose this, so perhaps this choice was indeterminable"? "I don't think that the scientific community knows enough about quantum physics to be able to make that assertion [of random events]." There's plenty I don't understand about the subject, but it seems it's the indeterminate nature of a particle's state before observation that rocked the scientific community. Not only is the state indeterminate because people cannot determine it - it's indeterminate in that it literally exists in two forms initially, creating branches in the otherwise supposedly straight causal chain. "Even though you are justified in killing someone I am in turn justified in throwing you in prison for the good of society." Which means... everything is justified? Just confirming: you are claiming everyone is amoral? "People with Tourette's or addictions simply have another cause to determining their decisions. It is a bigger cause than most others but itself falls into the extremely long list of causes that determine our decisions." Yet isn't there a struggle when a sufferer tries to overcome the forces within him? How would you describe that struggle? I would call it voluntary, rational will fighting involuntary, irrational, possible random urges. Furthermore, don't you agree that we perceive a difference between ourselves and such people driven by involuntary impulses? If no difference exists, what is this difference we observe and feel? "I simply think that it is the best theory because it is verifiable and demonstrable." How is the absence of free will demonstrable? Quite apart from the difficulty of proving something's absence, your original proof for its absence rests chiefly on absence of proof of its presence. "You are simply the tool of determinism and thus must be subject to it's design." Slipping a little off-topic now: how would you define consciousness?