Free will is an illusion

Let me re-state his definition here: "Free Will-free and independent choice; voluntary decision; the ability to apply experiences to form a beneficial outcome" I would like to come right out and reject this definition of free will. If the free will debate were based on such a definition, it would be resolved quite swiftly. Unfortunately, my opponent has the wrong idea of free will. Here is the definition I will give, and assume that my opponent truly meant (because his definition, as I will show you further on, completely destroys his argument): *Free will: That a person has the ability to choose contrary to their nature (who they are). * I'll agree to keep his definition of "illusion. " Now down to my argument. Let's break this up. "The Identical Baby Argument" My opponent brings up that two identical mothers birth two clone babies whom are in turn placed into identical rooms with identical machinery to take care of them in identical ways. Let's call this the *Identical* Baby Argument, IBA. I'll present the modified consequence argument here: 1. The universe is a deterministic system, composed of atoms and governed by the laws of nature. 2. So everything that happens in the universe, (including every human thought and action), is the physically necessary consequence of its previous states (including those that obtained before we existed) and the laws of nature. 3. Humans have no power over the laws of nature or the states that obtained before we existed. (We cannot change them. ) 4. Since humans have no power over the things that necessitate their every thought and action, humans have no power to do anything other than what they actually do. 5. If humans have no power to do other than what they actually do, then humans are not free. 6. So humans are not free. Also, to make something "other" happen than what would have happened following the laws would violate the laws. I think using the IBA my opponent assumed he is helping the reader conclude that it is an impossibility that these two children would engage in the exact same behavior. What my opponent doesn't realize is the factors that could play into the children behaving in different ways despite all of his safety nets to put them in "identical environments. " A list: Outside stimuli for the mothers, still separate wombs made of separate atoms, babies are made of separate atoms, different womb experiences, just watching the babies may interfere with their development because of different vibrations in atoms outside of the space, different bolts that the two machines are made of consisting of different atoms, different spots of gravity the babies are resting on, celestial movements, environment outside the rooms and the atoms they are made up of (we of course know that the walls of the room can't possibly keep out things at the atomic level, we could even add something like quantum tunneling to this if my opponent disagrees), etc, etc, etc. You could only perform this experiment with atoms at the very beginning of time. If, say, the universe split into two directions at its creation, and from the very initial state, they were exactly alike - so something like this: A = B (Segment A) ------------- | start | ------------- (Segment B) Then yes, everything that happened in segment A would also happen in the exact same fashion in segment B, if the laws were exactly the same, the initial states were exactly the same, and the starting factor was *exactly* the same. Obviously, this is not the case in the reality of the two babies placed in *our* reality for his argument, and thus the reason my opponent made a mistake in his assumption. "The Shirt Argument" My opponent's shirt argument is a water downed argument of the original made by Ronald Nash for Libertarian free will (except he used a very hungry dog and two bowls of food). I'm going to assume that my opponent "hates" both black and white with the exact same passion, that he *must* choose a band shirt -- there is no other physically possible decision he could make, like not choosing one at all because his favorite color is not there -- and that, as my opponent said, every single stimuli in the entire universe and reality since the beginning of time begs no favor to either choice. This is the mistake the instigator makes: For the sake of his argument, let's agree that the Libertarian choice could be made, and that a choice *is made*. If my opponent makes a choice outside of his nature, then the choice is not made by him. In a truly libertarian sense, this decision cannot have influences of any kind. Any decision without influences is arbitrary. It would be like flipping a coin. I chose A rather than B, not because of who I am, but for no reason at all. It just turned out that way. If the choice is not made by you, then it is not *your* free will, but a popping off, your environment's choice. It would not be my opponent making the choice, and therefore negating it being "his" free will. My opponent said that free will is "the ability to apply experiences to form a beneficial outcome. " None of his experiences are able to give him the ability to apply them toward an outcome. I'm sorry. His example of him having free will negates his definition of free will. Free will is not only impossible, but a complete illusion. I look forward to my opponent's defense. Regards, Vi Veri