Existence of Human Freewill

Con has ignored my argument in support of free will. As such, I extend my arguments into the next round. Since Con indicated that burden of proof is shared, it is puzzling why he would ignore my argument in support of free will.A Chain of ReactionsMy point that science does not determine morality was to show that our morals do not develop as a result of scientific processes. If they did, every culture would develop the same code of morality. Some argue that morality is only developed through evolutionary processes; that someone's morality is determined by how best to survive. But this does not follow, since there are those who would give their own lives to help a stranger (e.g. police officers), and there are those who believe it is better to give than to receive, which goes against the "survival of the fittest" mentality. The fact that we can, and do, choose actions which are selfless proves that our morality is not determined by scientific processes and therefore, we are able to make decisions which go against our mere nature, or even our nurture.It is in our nature to survive, yet a mother will go hungry to feed her starving children. Some people are taught morality by their parents, yet they still grow up and reject the teachings of their parents while their siblings may grow up and embrace the teachings of their parentsIt is curious that Con would accuse me of taking his words out of context, then do the very same to me. When I said that non-being cannot produce being, that was in response to his using "wavefunctions" to show why humans don't have free will. The Copenhagen interpretation is but one interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, and Con apparently does not deem it fit to explain himself or support this interpretation as the superior one.Additionally, Con's syllogism is invalid (and, by extension, unsound). His conclusion, C, does not follow from the premises, A and B. Matter is inanimate, therefore it cannot have a will. However, we, as humans, are animate creatures. We do things on our own, without the need of outside intervention. We rely on our bodies and our internal organs to function. As conscious, sentient beings, we have the capacity to make rational decisions freely. It does not follow that we, as rational beings, have no free will simply because our bodies it made up of inanimate matter.Paradigms and Other InfluencesPutting this argument into a syllogism has made his argument more clear, so I appreciate that.However, his argument is still a non-sequitur. First, having an infinite number in reality is simply impossible. Take Hilbert's Hotel, for example. If a hotel with an infinite number of rooms were to exist, and every room is full, it could not logically accommodate any new guests. Yet if there is an infinite number of rooms, you should be able to accommodate one more person by shifting everyone over a room. It is a logical impossibility since you would not be able to accommodate any new guests and you would always be able to accommodate one more guest. It is not possible that we are influenced by an infinite number of ways our behavior is altered.Additionally, people can and do choose actions which go against their nature, and people can and do choose actions which go against their nurture.Even if someone's behavior is altered, as Con asserts in premise B, it doesn't follow that they still don't have a choice. If I grow up to believe that adultery is wrong and I get married, I can still be tempted by a member of the opposite sex and it still might be possible for me to fall into temptation and commit adultery. I grew up being conditioned to believe that adultery is wrong, but that doesn't preclude the possibility of being tempted by it or giving in to temptation and committing it. And it certainly doesn't reduce the number of choices we have, as premise B asserts.