Free will does not exist.

Before I post my final argument I think it is important to ask everyone not to vote based upon what they personally believe about free will. Almost everyone believes that free will exists and if everyone votes with there personal free will disposition then I certainly lost. Now on to the debate! Assumptions are important to make or otherwise you will be debating something other than what was meant to be discussed. Without my assumption someone could tell me, "We have free will because god has given it to us." The only thing left would be to refute the existence of god. Now although I do not believe in god, I refuse to debate his existence in this round because it is not the debate to be had. I fully realize that you may have a valid argument if you state that god gives us free will, however god's existence is not what presently interests me. If you don't like my opening assumption then don't debate me on this topic. Furthermore, I have not given the contender anything that is impossible to defend as there are many atheists who believe in the existence of free will. In summary, I chose to assume the non-existence of god so that we can actually debate free will. If you feel that free will exists solely because god has given it to us then, given my assumption which I stated from the beginning, you must vote Pro. I'm not assuming determinism. I'm trying to prove it. That's what this debate is about. 1. Your analogy is interesting and correct. I stated my argument poorly. I will better state it next time I debate this topic. 2. You've misunderstood me. I merely said that consciousness would have to be exempt from the laws of the universe in order to create free will. I never discussed the existence of consciousness, only its abilities. //"You can't even predict the atom, much less my brain." I never said we had to be able to predict the brain. Predictability is independent of whether or not free will exists. Just as dice do not have free will, it is nearly impossible to predict there results before they actually come to a stop. Even if you were to prove that we could never predict what a human would do (using quantum mechanics or whatever) then you have still not necessarily proven the existence of free will. Quantum mechanics brings to light entirely random actions that take place at a sub-atomic level. If somehow you were able to show that will is attached to this and consequentially could not be predicted then you still have not proven that will is free. Merely random, which is in no way free. In fact, randomness could be argued as the exact opposite of freedom. No one would argue that a quantum particle had free will, yet it is and will always be impossible to predict its next action. //[Brain=well formed. Brain: not confined by natural laws. Backwards way of looking. Brain formed to evade conclusions.] 3 Assertions. 4Th statement: evasion is not a proof of free will. //[If a rock is coming at you, you will see it and move.] This has proven nothing. A nuclear reactor may push control rods deep into the fuel if the reactor starts to overheat but this has not proven free will. Of course the brain will command you to move when a rock is thrown at you because that's the way it is structured. Just as a reactor is structured to shut down when it starts to overheat. //[The brains does depend some on chemistry. Brain=forward looking and self interested. Misunderstanding of the brain.] This is an assertion, followed by a point that does not prove anything, followed by assertion. To address your point. Future looking self interested beings do not prove free will. Computer programs look to the future. 3. //[Referencing dopamine, lobotomies, etc] "That has a lot to do with the brain and how it works, but nothing to do with what it does." This has everything to do with what your brain will do. Drugs in your body will lead your brain to lead you to feel euphoric. You have done nothing to show that what you do does not reflect the structure of your brain. I have shown that lobotomies undoubtedly change the way that you act. This proves that the way you act is hinged to the structure of your brain. //"The brain serves to give us free will, to free us from the bonds of determinism. The brain is an amazing engine for lifting ourselves above what we would otherwise be." Assertion. //[Your quantum mechanical thoughts and "off"ness of prediction.] I never said that we had to be able to predict the action of everything. Not being able to predict actions do not prove the existence of free will. Furthermore, ability is only a capacity issue. It doesn't show that we will never be able to predict Everything outside of quantum particles, is theoretically possible predict. Due to this it is only logical to believe that everything the brain does is either random or predictable. Because all matter in this universe is either random or predictable. Everything that Laplace's demon can't predict is random and not free. //[In regards to a machine that could predict] "And which ever event it says, I will just do the opposite to spite it." Thats fine. Your actions could be related to that of a quantum particles. The very act of looking at a quantum particle changes its characteristics. That doesn't prove that it has free will. Furthermore, you haven't shown that the machine wouldn't actually know that when telling you what you would do, that you would do the opposite. What the machine tells you is not necessarily what it knows. You have not shown that the machine does not know what you will actually do. It could easily know that if it tells you that you will go left, then you will actually go right. You've only shown that telling you what you will do will change what you will do. This is irrelevant to free will. //As for your questions of the machine. First, I would like to state that you have assumed that I believe that everything could theoretically be predicted. I never said this, merely that free will does not exist. Now for the machine questions. These arguments are kin to another argument. Pretend I was to describe to you a devise that would show you exactly what was right in front of it. Now, understand that this devise is a mirror. What would happen if two perfectly parallel mirrors faced each other? This has not disproven mirrors just as you have not disproven the machine. Maybe one of the machines would overload and blow up. I don't know. It's not important. //[God stuff.] Are you joking here? Maybe playing devil's advocate? I'm not sure. Your profile says you're an atheist and I've read some of your debates where you openly say, "I'm an atheist." Anyway, (as you know) you're god claims are not significant in this round due to what I declared this debate was about in my opening argument. Furthermore, these are assertions. Conclusion: Your response is almost solely assertions followed by points that prove nothing relevant. Furthermore you have tried to refute my disproofs of free will (which I have responded to here) but you never to proved the existence of free will. Until you have proven free will's existence, you cannot win this round. (Russel's Teapot).