Determinism is true while Free Will is a fallacy

You made me think, question and reconsider… That's what we are here for. "I think, therefore I am" – René Descartes. So thank you Tyler. I still contend that my opponent's response doesn't prove his contention, or challenges my argument in any way. I will demonstrate this claim in my rebuttal below. Free will is not a fallacy My opponent, rightfully, asked me to share the burden of proof. He asked me to not only prove that determinism is false, but also prove that free will is not a fallacy. I agree with him. I also want to remind my opponent that he must prove that determinism is true. I argue that determinism and free will are two opposites; similar to heads and tails in a coin toss. There are no other possible outcomes. I argue that a cause can either be determined or undetermined (Null hypothesis). An undetermined cause is a cause that acted on its own because it wasn't caused by something else. The oxford dictionary defines free will as "the ability to act at one’s own discretion" (1). Therefore an undetermined cause is a cause that had some form of free will. Conversely, if I acted on my own, then surely I wasn't determined… otherwise what free will would that be? Therefore, to prove that free will exists, I only need to prove that determinism is false. If I toss a coin, and it wasn't heads… then surely I can conclude that it's tails. Here's a summary of my argument above that proves 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 Events sequence and interdependence My opponent explained with great deal how events relate to each other, and become factors in determining the next set of events. I don't dispute that. But my opponent claimed that these characteristics apply to every possible event. In other words, he claimed that there cannot be other events in the mix that were not determined. This is a truth claim, and my opponent has the burden of proof to prove that every event must be determined. My opponent hasn't shown how that is the case. Let me illustrate this with an example. Someone can claim that 2­­x > x2. He's very excited about this discovery that he called it "Greaterism (made up name)". He shows how 25 (or 32) is greater than 52 (or 25). The gap widens with larger numbers: 2100 (or 1.27 x 1030) is much greater than 1002 (or 10,000). But we must be careful that this formula has limitations! It doesn't apply when x is less than 4! A better way of defining this would be: Greaterism is true if x is greater than 4 Ingreaterism (another made up name) is true otherwise I argue for the same when it comes to determinism. I don't claim that the vast majority of all events in the known and unknown universes follow determinism. But just like my example, it has its limitations! Determinism is only true for uncaused causes. I argue that the proper way to define what causes events to occur should be like this: Determinism is true if the cause was caused Free will is true if the cause was uncaused My opponent asked me if I believe in a finite amount of mass and energy, and I agree. There must be a finite amount of mass and energy. And I don't dispute the formulas he used. Again, 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. Conclusion My opponent didn't dispute my logic or my premises. He didn't argue my contention that there must exist at least 1 uncaused cause. Since an uncaused cause can't be determined, this renders the claim that determinism is true for every event as false. I also showed how his rebuttal didn't prove determinism, but it merely described it. I don't disagree that determinism is true, but it doesn't necessarily apply for every event, and definitely not the very first uncaused cause. Thank you. (1) Oxford dictionary - . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...