Free will is an illusion

Perhaps every emotion you have ever had, could conceivably have been placed their by you. Induced by a past emotion because of what's happening to you right now. What's happening now, reminds you of a past situation, and the emotions that were tied to that situation. Whether you remember the situation or not, the emotional imprint remains with you, and can greatly effect how you act now. What memories are affecting your emotions at this very moment? Why did you remember the situations that are tied to your current emotions? If another random person were to go through the entire sequence of events that made up your entire life, in the exact same order, would they remember all the events that are influencing your mood right now? What have you forgotten, why did you forget it? What would the random person who is going through your sequence of events have forgotten by the time they reached this moment? Would they have the same exact emotions that you have right now? Would their emotions influence them to make the exact same decision that you will make? If you were severely assaulted by a large rock all up in your grill, it's going to make a large impact on your memory, but what about the neutral situations? My opponent agrees with me that "what one might consider to be reasonable, others may not, the reasonable or logical decisions pertain only to ones self". What situations you've decided to remember, and the ones you may have forgotten, or even the ones you've decided to not give a second thought and forget altogether, were the logical memories you've decided on that pertains to you. The emotions attached to your specific memory set, may influence your impulses, desires, anguish, or joy. My opponent has failed to convince me that the entire process that is influencing your mood right now, is or ever has been outside of your free will. Your free will appears in the memories you've decided store, which are influencing your mood right now! My opponent claims that "you can never decide what you will decide what you will do". Does anyone else find that statement to be superfluous or redundant? Of course you can't decide what you will decide, you would need to know the future! That, coupled with the fact that in the very sentence before, he/she claims "you can sometimes DECIDE what you are going to do". If you can decide what you are going to do, is that decision not free will? I think my opponent may have a misconception of time. NOW is the only time that exists! Now was the only time that has ever existed, and now is the only time that ever will exist. The past is an illusion caused by our memories. The future is just of an idea of what we think may happen next and of course it never does go the way we think. On a mathematical basis, time is the same phenomenon as distance, nothing more! Our sight must travel a distance to reach and perceive an object, or thing. That is what gives us the illusion that time is a rapidly changing sequence of events. My opponents claim that "you can never decide what you will decide" is based on an illusionary concept of time because you would need to know the future to do that, and the future isn't real! "CHOICE!!!! The boy has no real choice, has he? Self interest, fear of physical pain drove him to that grotesque act of self abasment. Its insincerity was clear to be seen. He ceases also to be a creature capable of moral choice".-----So said the priest in one of my favorite novels/movies, a clockwork orange. Anthony Burgess was a firm believer of free will. Lets say, all sin were made illegal, would that make everyone saint? The point Anthony Burgess was trying to make was, if society is forced to abide by moral standards, does that actually make it a moral society? For a criminal to truly pay back there debt to society, first they must agree to abide by moral standards by CHOICE, not out of fear of punishment, and we can not force that choice on them. Clockwork Orange was a loud statement of free will. I most certainly stand by my claim that Anthony Burgess is not the best person to quote, to make an argument against free will!!!! My opponents argument is based on NOTHING!!!!!!! Neil DeGrasse Tyson and many others believe that early man(circa 50,000 years ago), probably thought the sky was made up of messages sent by thier gods! And how can we blame them, what tools could they have used to know otherwise? And what was beyond the stars, beyond the ever turning message board?..................Nothing! Until of course, we created telescopes to see that those messages were actually other planets, places we could conceivably visit. Then of course, we discovered the solar system, then the galaxy, then the universe, then yadda yadda, and what lies out beyond our universe?..................Nothing! In other spectrums of math and science, there's alot of "nothing", they even gave it its own number. Eighty-five percent of the universe is nothing. Ninety five percent of physicists believe the big-bang is a proven "theory", which means everything was created out of, or from nothing. Perhaps my opponent is correct when he/she claims that our "conscious self" comes from nothing. All we "are" is a pack of neurons. Maybe, the place or thing that our decision making comes from is nothing, but does that constitute as a proof of his proposal? What is that nothing he/she speaks of? Is it not just the "great unknown? Is it actually nothing, or is it just beyond the scope of our senses? Neil DeGrasse Tyson points out that, beyond the scope of what our senses can perceive, you always find nothing, until of course you create the tools to see closer, or deeper into that "nothing", only to find it was not even close to nothing. The pattern always remains the same, we will continually see further and deeper into the nothing. Who's to say that we can't conceivably create the tools to look into what my opponent calls "nothing"? Perhaps our computational skill can create an extra sense for us to be able to perceive our existence in ways we never imagined. All the better to cast light into the nothingness. Personally, I don't consider "nothing" to be proof of anything, let alone proof that free will is an illusion, his claim that our free will comes from nothing, however right or wrong it may be, it does not constitute as a proof of his proposal. His argument is based on NOTHING!!!! I must also point out that my opponent was very "willy-nilly" on whether he/she was making the argument that free will is merely outside of our control, or whether our entire life is predetermined! There's an obviously vast difference between the two. Yes, if our will is predetermined, we don't have free will, but if our life is an ever moving process of random events that we or anything has no control of, it's NOT predetermined. He/she aimlessly argues for one, or the other, or both, or whatever target his/her "shot in the dark" argument can hit. Perhaps not making much of the argument up from random quotes by people who may or may not agree with his/her thesis, would have helped to clarify his/her argument! Thanks for reading!