Does freewill exist? (Pro) Libertarian Freewill is true, (Con) Hard determinism is true

Note: To clarify, the logic argument referred to in my rebuttal is my third argument. I invite Pro to address my counter-rebuttal in his closing statement. Also, I am unsure as to why Pro is planning on bringing up a new "final argument" in his closing statement, but if he does then I will refute it in my own closing statement. I will now vindicate my own points by showing the error in my opponent's rebuttals. __________ Argument 1: "My response is that yes i agree with your definition of determinism however whats ironic is that your first argument is based on the claim that you can predict the motion of particles because of the laws of nature something that i explicitly refuted in my case for free will." "Response: This is false as i would agree that most of the time particles follow the laws of nature the problem with this claim is there is still uncertainty at the quantum level and thus everything wouldn't follow the laws of nature." The goal of my first argument was not to assert that it is possible to predict the position and motion of every particle in existence. My point was simply that there are laws in the universe, and every particle follows those laws. Quantum physics is part of the order of the universe, and every quantum particle follows the laws of quantum physics; "semi-free" particles are part of this order. Therefore, it is possible for everything to follow the laws of nature without being completely predictable. "The fundamental problem with this argument is that it assumes physicalism true and that the brain produces consciousness not only is there no evidence for physicalism or that the brain produces consciousness but in quantum physics physicalism falls apart since space and time emerge from the wave-function in fact everything in our universe pops up from the wave-function (quantum vacuum) this means that matter is not fundamental and emerges from something else. In fact matter seems to need mind rather than what physicalism is saying." My response to this argument is similar to my response to Pro's first main argument. Pro's rebuttal, combined with his statements about the Free Will Theorem, imply that there is some existence apart from our own that controls matter in this existence. If that is true, then the separate existence must also have its own physical laws that it adheres to, and my argument therefore still applies on a meta-level. The argument that physicalism is not true because "there [is] no evidence for physicalism or that the brain produces consciousness" is, by itself, an argument from ignorance. However, I assume that it was meant as an addition to Pro's other statement, which I refuted above. __________ Argument 2: "This argument doesnt work since i never said that since quantum mechanics is random then we have free will and neither does my argument. The indeterminacy of quantum mechanics speaks of our ability to not know an outcome until an observer is making a measurement not that random events cause everything. im not saying things are not determined what im really saying that they are determined by the choices of agents which causally affect other things, this is known as agent causation which is how free will works. Outcomes are determined not by prior events or random events but by agents that exist outside of physical reality. And this is what quantum mechanics tells us." Concerning my original argument, I concede that because Pro never cited to randomness in his argument, my own argument is irrelevant. However, I will also address what Pro says about "agent causation". Pro says that "agents...causally affect other things", and "Outcomes are determined...by agents that exist outside of physical reality." The crux of Pro's arguments appears to be that there is some existence outside of our own that determines our own actions. For a rebuttal of this, refer to my Argument 1 counter-rebuttal and my original Argument 3. Once again, these so-called "agents that exist outside of physical reality" are also governed by laws: laws unknown to us, but laws all the same. Therefore, all of my arguments still apply to any agent that causes things to occur. If Pro is asserting that our mind is one of these agents, then it too must be governed by the rules of some system, and its decisions are ultimately determined by factors that are entirely out of its control. __________ Argument 3: "I've heard a lot of determinist make this argument before however this argument creates paradoxical conclusions since for example what if i have good reasons to enjoy a piece of pizza and good reasons to reject pizza and favor a healthier choice. The reason is an external factor but which reasons cause the outcome now of course you could say the stronger desire wins but what or who decides which is the stronger desire since these are non-physical desires which one has more power? Their is no physical event that causes this and they are purely mental so we cant study the physical structure of them and figure out which one is stronger and if they are mental then it follow that the mind decides which is the stronger desire and if the mind decides then that's what free will is in the first place so this argument doesn't work as an argument for determinism since the will of self (mind) could choose without being predetermined or predetermined randomly so (Con) argument fails" In his rebuttal, Pro presents us with a situation that attempts to disprove the argument that decisions must necessarily be based on some combination of external factors. Pro's situation is that a person has both reasons to do something and reasons not to do something. Pro reasons, as I would, that the better reason will determine the ultimate action of the person. Here, Pro attempts to create a paradox by asking "what or who decides which is the stronger desire...which one has more power?" After some deliberation, Pro concludes that "the mind decides which is the stronger desire and if the mind decides then that's what free will is in the first place". Pro's ultimate chain of reasoning is the following: 1. Something must decide what decision a person makes when presented with multiple options. 2. Whatever process makes said decision is located in the mind. 3. Therefore, the mind makes the decision. 5. If the mind makes the decision, then the person decided with their own free will. Notice that I left out 4. The reason for that is free will is not defined as the mind making decisions. Free will is defined as the mind making decisions based on processes that are, in some way, independent of external factors. Because that is what free will is, the missing logical step is: 4. Free will is the mind making decisions based on processes that are, in some way, independent of external factors. Now that I have pointed this out, the flaw in Pro's logic is obvious. Pro forgets that free will is not just the mind deciding, but the mind deciding free of external factors controlling its decisions. My original argument is that the mind making decisions does not necessitate free will. Therefore, Pro's argument is invalid because it draws conclusions from insufficient premises; Pro never proved that the mind's decisions are not based on external factors. __________ Because Pro's rebuttals for my first and third arguments are either irrelevant or incorrect, those arguments are still valid. While I do concede my second argument as irrelevant, this does not diminish the accuracy of my other points. Pro's other rebuttals either miss the point of the argument, or utilize erroneous logic, and therefore my case that free will is impossible remains sound. http://philosophy.lander.edu...