Determinism is true while Free Will is a fallacy

Now you said that determinism must be the complete opposite of free will therefore your whole basis for argument was that all you had to do was disprove my stance to prove yours. You said that multiple times: "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." "Therefore, to prove that free will exists, I only need to prove that determinism is false." "I argue that determinism and free will are two opposites...There are no other possible outcomes." Then my opponent mid argument changes his stance and also voids his whole basis for argument. "my contention is not that determinism is always false, because I do believe that determinism is true for the most part." "My contention is that determinism cannot be true for every possible event as I demonstrated before." How can con claim that his whole basis for argument is that determinism must be false for free will to be true. Then again he claims that for the validity of his entire argument (pro free will) to be true determinism MUST be absolutely false and even claims the two to be opposites with no other outcomes. Then not much longer he says that determinism is not just somewhat true but even goes as far to say that it's true for the most part! Now tell me, how can this not be a invalid and illogical argument when con goes against the credibility of his argument by contradicting himself? That alone gives pro the advantage by con nullifying his claimed basis for argument. So unless con now can explain why he changed his basis for argument* he must now give evidence proving free will as being true since determinism isn’t always false as he originally claimed. As con states above here is a reiteration of his argument describing why he thinks that free will is not a fallacy: 1. At least 1 uncaused cause exists 2. An uncaused cause is not determined 3. Therefore, there exists at least one uncaused cause which acted on its own (i.e. had free will) 4. It follows, logically and necessarily, that free will is not a fallacy Taken in context of his previous argument he is describing his stance that there is nothing that caused the big bang therefore if you have an event that didn't cause the event how can determinism be true since it requires that every event must have a cause/effect relationship? The problem is that my opponent is making an assumption, all I have to do is ask for him to prove that the big bang wasn't caused by another event. He can't, only assume or predict. Yes we agree that the big bang is a system that started with a finite amount of energy and mass, but beyond that anything claimed is merely a guess based off of the limited data that we have on that subject. As it stands we have three theories on the end of the universe; one states that the universe will expand forever, another shows the universe expanding to a point then infinitely decreasing in rate of acceleration nearing zero but never reaching it, and a third model has the universe expanding to a certain point then collapsing in on itself to a single point. All three have supporters but all those descriptions are still only predictions since empirical evidence proving any of the three as being inherently* true or false. I can summarize the above paragraph as such; there is no empirical data proving nor disproving events describing the nature of the universe at its end, only speculation of what COULD happen given the knowledge that we have and making educated guesses. Therefore to say with logical certainty that there wasn’t an event that caused the big bang would also be false since, once again, we have no relatable data or evidence to prove such. Now you might ask how I can say with certainty that determinism is true when I just said that the universe is finite and just made the statement that we have no true evidence about its actual nature. Well to answer that I say that given the knowledge we have now we believe the universe to probably be finite. Neither I nor anyone else can prove it either way. It’s like going up to somebody in the supermarket and asking them to prove that gravity is real. They could show me all kinds of experiments that show that gravity has a consistent cause/effect relationship with any object they drop onto the floor. They can go so far as to pull up century worth’s of data reinforcing their claim that gravity is absolutely real. The problem is that they can’t technically say that since there is always the possibility that somewhere in the universe gravity may not have the same qualities that we understand it to have. Second example if you'd like: [In the same scenario I could as someone to measure the amount of distance between me and them. They could say that there’s x amount of meters/centimeters/millimeters/ect but once again I could always tell them that they’re wrong because they haven’t given me a distance that is absolutely correct. That’s because the way we measure distance is an arbitrary number that we set as a constant to be able to describe where one object is in space relative to another object. What I’m really asking them is to tell me how many points in space there are between me and them. They could keep giving me smaller and smaller units of measurements but they would never be able to describe exactly how far from each other we truly are. Scientist are certain that there aren’t a infinite amount of points in space, they just realize that we don’t have the means to measure or describe what the smallest point actually is in space. So if I asked them the question how far away from each other we are and they said I don’t know they would be giving me a absolutely true answer.] The point I’m making is that to say something isn’t just because we don’t know is erroneous. But to say that we don’t know anything just because everything we know could be false is pointless. What I’m describing are called logical necessities. Sure gravity could be wrong to some degree. And how we describe gravity as having the quality of 9.81… m/s2 of acceleration at sea level on Earth could always be more accurate. But for our required means and ability for accurate measurements 9.81 typically suffices. I know that if I don’t eat I will die, if I jump off a cliff I will fall, if I touch a hot metal object I will burn; why is that? Because of trial and error both experienced and seen. I accept that anything can happen, and if you truly believe that strongly in basic logic then go jump off a cliff (not telling you to do that haha) since logically you could just not fall. So in summary to say no event preceded the big bang is false since we have no evidence proving neither disproving this claim. That is my response to my opponents argument stating why determinism is false and free will is true. See the list at the top. Therefore I resort on the information I gave above. My final argument will be the basis of my opponents logic and reinforcing it being false. With that said I will quote myself with a comment I posted earlier. “To rely solely on sensory qualitative observations leaves a person at risk of making incorrect assumptions. Look at how we came to understand our solar system as being "heliocentric". I'm sure you know that the earth was presumed to be at the center of the universe (in other words geocentric) with the sun/planets revolving around the earth and the stars being part of the heavens. That was held as unopposed law for many years until a astrologist (also philosopher) proposed the idea of a solar system with the Sun being the center and the Earth orbiting it along with the other planets. As we all know this is held to be firmly established today as being the model but at the time technology hadn't the means to prove the heliocentric model so the next best thing were visual observations that heavily favored the geocentric model. Hell, even after data was being compiled to back up the heliocentric model protesters of it misinterpreted the data as reinforcing their idea (retrograde motion). So yes, we are limited to the observations we make with the means we have to make those observations. For all we know there could be "universal truths" that we hold today that could be us either misinterpreting the data and requiring tweaking or disproven entirely. What I'm getting at is what can certainty be without some form of presumption? Somewhere along the line someone had to ask why then make a presumption to form a hypothesis, true or not. If a person is afraid to be wrong they will never be right, because one thing us humans are pretty good at is learning from our failures. That's how philosophy came about and why science is what it is today..it's all thanks to a sh1t-ton of assumptions! So when that impossibility does occur I'd be excited to see it since that's an opportunity to redefine what we thought we already knew (hopefully for the better). The one thing I absolutely know to be true is that I truly don't know what is absolutely true” –end quote I had already brought this issue up earlier in this post but I wanted to reiterate since I felt this comment best describes how logic should be interpreted. To follow logic (without deterrence) at its root is flawed. Even to follow math at its root is thus inherently flawed since it’s logically based.(–ref http://ocw.mit.edu...) My argument wasn’t to disprove free will, my argument was to prove that determinism has more of a basis in logical necessity then free will. To say one thing is always and another is never would be flawed. To say something has more probability then another is absolutely possible. I realize that I didn’t cite all my sources but if you require them let me know and I’ll post them in the next round. I leave it to my opponent to try to counter me. Thanks.