Free will probably exists in humans.

"This works down to a molecular level, but it stops where abiotic factors meet biotic factors; or perhaps it stops at animals. Or just mammals. Or humans. I don't know. But this is only really applied to things that can't think, and are thus forced to go with the flow." I request that my opponent clarify. What are biotic factors? Are they not made up of molecules? It does not have to be molecules. It can be any sort of particle, even if that particle exists outside the universe (i.e. is supernatural). "The first cause can be a source of free will, because it could not have been caused by anything else." Ignoring my third point, it can be a source of free will, but only one time. After that, it is just determinism. "Just because something is unpredictable, doesn't mean that it is random." If something cannot be predicted no matter how much knowledge the predictor possesses, it is random. "When I read this debate, I had the choice of either accepting the debate, or not. It was MY CHOICE." My opponent is just saying that he felt like he was making a choice. This is most likely an illusion. My opponent has not proven that it was his choice; he simply made the statement. Even if he feels like it was his choice, the logic of my point cannot be simply discarded. Personal feelings are subjective. Logic is not. Thus, my logic overrides my opponent's personal feeling. "To negate my statement, and the resolution, you have to prove that I did not accept this debate with my own free will." That's what I did, before my opponent proceeded to ignore my proof based on a personal feeling. "If I have a set of choices, I can use past experiences of previous events to consider the options, but it is I who eventually makes the decisions." Or my opponent just has the illusion of making decisions. Irrespective, my opponent's claim has no evidence behind it. "http://en.wikipedia.org...; I thank my opponent for this link. It's not entirely relevant to the debate, but I had not previously found that page, and it's a good resource for arguments on both sides. "Yes, this is a highly debated topic, but if neither side can reach a provable conclusion, the final victory goes to me, as it allows for the high probability of free will's existence." My opponent has not justified this statement. If both sides have equal arguments, why should the vote go to PRO? Should it not go to neither side? *** I would like to point out that my opponent has made no real arguments. I will now make another argument, from this video: http://www.youtube.com... Free will occurs when we make decisions where the ultimate decision comes down to our desires and not external factors. But where do our desires come from? External factors? That's not free will. Previous desires? Where did those come from? Eventually, we get to either a cause that came out of nothing or to an external factor. A cause out of nothing is random, since it is not based on anything, and is therefore not free will; external factors are not free will either. Another Argument From the Wikipedia article: ". . . [D]ecisions made by a subject are first being made on a subconscious level and only afterward being translated into a 'conscious decision', and that the subject's belief that it occurred at the behest of her will was only due to her retrospective perspective on the event." This was evidenced by a study conducted by Benjamin Libet. It is an argument against free will, and also helps to demonstrate why my opponent's "choice" about accepting this debate was quite possibly an illusion: the subjects in this study thought they were making a conscious decision even when they weren't, so the same is possible for my opponent. I now offer an argument that my case does not rely on, but is interesting nonetheless. If we assume that free will does not exist, what should we do? What we think are our decisions are not really our decisions, so "our" decisions don't matter. There are only two logical courses of action that I see. 1. Stop trying to do anything. Just stop moving and breathing. Nothing is really our decision, so why bother? 2. Assume that free will exists and continue doing what you would do anyway. If free will does not exist, then it doesn't matter whether we choose (1) or (2). If free will does exist, then (2) is the best choice. So even if the chance of free will existing is incredibly small, (2) is still the best choice. I look forward to my opponent's response.