Free will is an illusion

"As mine is from the American Heritage Dictionary, I see it as completely valid." Ok, since my opponent initiated this debate, I'll concede to this and keep his definition (which he still decides to keep even though it bludgeons his arguments in the previous round). This, though, doesn't change anything and or defer determinism even from his definition. Let me re-state it here: "Free Will-free and independent choice; voluntary decision; the ability to apply experiences to form a beneficial outcome" Now down to fixing my opponent's mistakes.... He first states: "Is that so? Well in that case, can you tell me what I will do next? Are you sure?" The French mathematician and astronomer, Pierre-Simon, marquis de Laplace, a believer in causal determinism, can be quoted saying in "Essai": --We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.-- This intellect is referred to as "Laplace's demon" by his later biographers. I'll give it a little bit of modification and say that Laplace's demon knows these things intuitively and does not find them out by physical means. So, to my opponent, if I were to know the placement of every atom in all of reality at this present moment, plus the perfect laws of physics that bind them, then yes, I would know exactly what you were going to do next. Unfortunately, I do not know the position of every atom or all of the laws of physics, so I'm sorry I personally can not tell you what your future actions hold. My opponent says that I don't know where he might go with his bike. He's right, with the limited knowledge I have, I probably couldn't tell him *exactly* what would happen with *exact* certainty, but if I had the modified Laplacian Demon's abilities, I could, well, point him in the right direction ; ) My opponent can also look back up to my previous IBA argument for more information as I had already spelled this out earlier. Next, Con states: "Nope. I can make bad decisions. Here is where my opponent's definition fails her. I may decide to gamble away all of my money for no reason whatsoever. That is not in my nature, but that doesn't stop me from doing it. People do this all the time. They "chose" to act poorly. But they acted on their own will." Answer time! Did he act against his nature? No. There has to be a *reason* he gambled away all of his money, or he would be violating the principle of sufficient reason. His reason might not be 100% known by him (an accumulation of many previous psychological, biological, chemical, physical states etc) that lead him to making this decision, but there still are reasons he did it for. I can't possibly think of anyone doing anything for no reason at all (even if the reason is not consciously known by them, or seemingly "random") Was he forced to do it? By his previous states and the laws of physics, he was necessitated to do what he did. Did he have free will to choose it or not? No, as follows from the first two answers. Since my opponent agrees with my premise 3, he concedes to it. Win for Pro. Since my opponent agrees with my premise 4, he concedes to it. I spoke my opponents sentence out loud and it still didn't make sense ; ) He can't choose doing what he does but he can choose what actions he does? That sounds like a big fat contradiction to me. Doing and actions are the same thing. It's not my job to make sense of my opponent's jabber, so if he can't give me a clear and convincing defense, then this point can be thrown away. Since my opponent's argument to my premise 4 was refuted, his use of "logic" to my 5th premise can be overthrown. "Ah, no. I'm free." Oh, no, you're not. ---Shirt Argument--- My opponent's rebuttal to me: "Are you equating me to a coin? There is a MAJOR difference here. The coin has NO choice in what side it lands on. Do I have a choice of which shirt I choose? You better believe it." All my opponent does here is show how insulted he is at being compared to a coin, say that there is a major difference, then give me the major difference - which was that the coin didn't have a choice and that he did. He didn't: A: He doesn't prove that he had more choice than the coin. Great, my opponent agrees that a coin doesn't have a choice in what side it lands on! What my opponent doesn't realize is that his mind is made of atoms, which in turn don't have free will, just like the coin, that in turn act in set ways, to make set chemical reactions, to make set biological reactions, to make set psychological reactions and so forth. Also, my opponent fails to understand the complexity and vastness of the universe and how this branches out to make his brain chemistry complex. I'd like to ask my opponent a question that he can debate with himself; can you tell me with absolute certainty what side the coin will land for the next 2, maybe 20, maybe 100 throws? You can't. There are too many factors that contribute to it. You could take a really good guess and be right, but you can't tell me with 100% confidence what the landings will be. B: Give anything more than a statement with a "You better believe it" afterwords instead of an actual explanation or argument to back himself up. My opponent still didn't explain to me how his decision was made to choose the shirt without any of his prior experiences and desires playing into the choice. He never explained how it was "his" decision. (Because he is his desires and experiences, all of his previous states, controlled by the laws of nature that he is a part of). Free will is not only impossible, but a complete illusion. Regards, Vi Veri