Existence of Human Freewill

Pro claims I have ignored his argument for free will. I had addressed his claims in the following passage: “Pro states that it is logical to assume freewill, however since the majority of this argument is Ad Populous it has limited credibility.“ I elaborate on my point. Pro’s whole claim of why freewill exists is a matter of opinion. He gives examples of why he feels that freewill exists and examples of why most people feel that freewill exists. As stated before this is an Argumentum ad populum and thus should be dismissed. A Chain of Reactions Pro claims “morals do not develop as a result of scientific processes.” I argue that humans are bound by the laws of physics and thus if humans do have this idea of morals, it would be the result of scientific processes. Pro goes on to say that if all actions were the result of scientific processes “every culture would develop the same code of morality. Some argue that morality is only developed through evolutionary processes”. This is an irrational and somewhat irrelevant assumption. Cultures are not bound to make decisions as a collective; instead cultures as a whole are influenced by the action of people within them. Again Pro has failed to distinguish between freewill an morality. Freewill is the ability to choose a course of action; morality is simply part of the illusion of freewill. Since we do not write our morality it is not something we can choose and since we cannot choose it, it acts as something controlling and influencing our actions. Pro has already objected to this concept by giving an example: “If I grow up to believe that adultery is wrong and I get married,... 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.” Pro states that his sense of morality tells him adultery is wrong. Morality is one’s sense of right and wrong, what one will or will not do. But empirical evidence contradicts him. If he does commit adultery then his morality clearly does not tell him adultery is wrong. I will assume that Pro makes the objection that it’s possible to know something as wrong yet still do it anyway. So if our actions are not purely governed by morality, they must be influenced by something else. The something else that determines our actions is our environment and since our environment shaped this so called morality in the first place it there was never freewill to begin with. To clean up this argument since it’s becoming abstract: 1) Human actions are influenced 2) An influence must result from something that exists 3) Physical entities exist: The Environment, DNA, etc. 4) Choice cannot be proven to exist, thus its existence must be assumed 5) Ockham’s Razor, least assumptions most likely 6) It is there for more likely that actions are determined by physical entities, than choice Paradigms and Other Influences Pro’s entire argument falls on this point: “People can and do choose actions which go against their nature, and people can and do choose actions which go against their nurture” This is false. A person's nature can only be seen by their actions, and consequently Pro’s entire argument is void. The following puts in motion the act: DNA The job the father had The job mother had People that worked with parents The house floorplan The neighborhood What the child had for lunch Every person in kindergarten Every person in their middle school, high school, collage That’s over 10 incredibly vague variables, now assuming each variable is dynamic to at least 10 variables. Now assume there are only 312,000,000 dynamic variables, not a very big number just the population of the United States. This could really be any number you want. That’s 10^312,000,000 http://www.wolframalpha.com... Infinitive influences exist, thus argument stands.