Free will is an illusion.

Rebuttals and closing statementsPRO: "My opponents car example seems odd. "My opponent points out the single discrepancy between my example and his research: Researchers can determine with 80% accuracy the choices a person may take while my example has a 100% accuracy. This discrepancy does not negate the fact that being able to predict something, no matter how accurate, does not negate the thing's existence. Free will exists whether or not you can predict its course. PRO: "So, if the researches were able to measure "element A" to this extent, there is simply no scientific explanation for free will"Basically, my opponent is saying: "If researchers were able to measure "element A" to this extent, then there is simply no scientific explanation for "element A". This syllogism makes no sense whatsoever. Anyway, we can measure atomic motion to quite an extent, does that mean there's no scientific explanation here? PRO: "If free will truly is an illusion, why don't I just sit back and see what happens? This in itself is a choice, a really hard one at that. Just try to sit, lay, or stand and do absolutely nothing. You will feel compelled to do something. My point of view is saying that thoughts and impulses simply arise in consciousness of which you are not consciously aware. "Simply, you test the existence of free will by choosing to do nothing. You conclude that since reasoning would compel you to eventually choose to do something else, free will doesn't exist. Being compelled to do something does not mean free will doesn't exist. Remember, free will is choice outside of necessity. Chemical reactions in your brain that tell you to eat or work are not necessities. That you choose the option against these reactions is, in fact, utter proof of free will. Also, it's impossible to not be consciously aware of something that is in your conscious mind. Unless you mean to say subconscious, your statement contradicts itself. PRO: "You are no more in control of the next though that pops into your head than you are in the next thing I type. "Quick: think about Bananas! !! There, now you're thinking about bananas. I exerted some stimulus of control and you did exactly what I wanted you to do: think about bananas. While I can't control what you type, I can, to some extent, control what you think. What does that say about free will? Ok, here's a simple exercise: think of and list as many fruits as you possibly can. Commit yourself to this exercise. Do it. D:<Fruits. Congratulations, you've effectively controlled your brain to think exclusively of fruits. Any thought that popped into your mind was interspersed with different kinds of fruits. You are in control of the thoughts that pop into your head. Chemical reactions that tell our minds to think thoughts of eating and breathing cannot be controlled. I'm not saying that you have complete control over your mind. You have partial control of it, and so do I (as per the banana example). The definition of free will is to be able to choose to act outside of necessity, and has nothing to do with the number of choices we have. "even without free will, we have to make choices. "Our choices are not objectively necessary, satisfying the definition of free will, which was my point in the first place. Rather than address my point, you blatantly assert: "Objective necessity is not needed to argue free will nor should it ever"However, the definition of free will specifically involves necessity. You can claim free will to be whatever you want it to be, but that doesn't make it anything other than it is. In conclusion, my opponent does not prove that free will doesn't exist. Conversely, I've satisfactorily shown free will to exist as per its definitions.