The notion that free will does not exist.

You point to the tests that look at the "randomness" of a set of numbers. This implies that they are not truly random but close enough. I see it this way because as I have already stated it is not possible to generate a truly random set of numbers. Casino slot machines use very long patterns that for all intense purposes work as random but truly are not; therefore, you can't test something for it's randomness if it's not really random to begin with. They use what is called a Random Number Generator. "A random number generator (often abbreviated as RNG) is a computational or physical device designed to generate a sequence of numbers or symbols that lack any pattern, i.e. appear random. Computer-based systems for random number generation are widely used, but often fall short of this goal" (http://en.wikipedia.org...). They may appear random but they are not. You said regarding quantum physics: "In response to my quantum physics example, you first claim that it is far from complete. This is true. In many of the experiments, scientists are still trying to figure out the hows and whys of certain things. But even the ones still searching for answers believe in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. It is because of this principle that one can never find out everything, and therefore can never (even hypothetically) determine all events, including the choices people make, before they occur. The alternate theories explaining quantum phenomena are things I don't wish to explore. I will only let it be known that I agree with about half of quantum physics and then reject the other half. At the point where no more experiments are done and crazy splitting universes and the Copenhagen theory come into play is the point where they lose me. But my problems with these pseudo-scientific explanations does not belong here in this debate." Regardless you admit that there is little or no certainty in this area of science. You say that the splitting universes, the Copenhagen Interpretation etc. are pseudo-sciences. But was not the idea that the earth was round was thought at the time a pseudo-science, that the earth revolves around the sun a pseudo-science? This is an area of science to where we have little or no certainty, unlike Newtonian physics where we have much certainty and verifiability. Therefore, I believe that Newtonian physics with its laws of determinism trumps these silly notions of superposition and other randomness that are not at all verifiable in the scientific world. They are assumptions and guesses to new discoveries and should be taken as nothing greater. You said: "Firstly, I will just mention that there is more randomness than superposition. As another example, electrons move around in a random motion in an atom. The position and momentum cannot be determined simultaneously, and when describing the location of the electron, scientists can only encompass a certain area where the electron is likely to be found. This area is called the electron cloud." Again this is an area that we have a lot of trouble with. There is a reason that the model for an atom has changed so many times over the years and the true model of an atom is still unknown and uncertain. It is a very hard area to be certain with. There is no verifiable randomness here as there is no verifiable randomness in the quantum world, there is only uncertainty. However, in the places that we do know, that we can verify, we see that determinism reigns supreme of all laws and is in fact the test that we use for scientific experimentation. Determinism is everywhere and is verifiable, randomness has never been verified. You said: "Now we come to your macroscopic world which does operate differently from the quantum world. Choice, free will, randomness and other such things are concepts. As such they are not tangible. Therefore, nothing can be said of their size. It is simply not possible to claim that will power and choices must follow the physical laws of the macroscopic world. There is no basis for this and nothing that states that quantum theories cannot just as easily claim the realm of will." Quantum theories are riddled with uncertainty and faults. However, I will demonstrate how the physical laws of the macroscopic world do follow determinism. Here we will look at a teenager. He is given a "choice" to study for a big test or go out with his friends drinking and partying. If he is a big partier or had developed through past experiences an addiction to alcohol, he will obviously go partying. If he is a good student because of the lessons instilled upon him by his parents he will probably stay home and study. However, since life is never so cut and dry let's look at some other scenarios. He is a big partier but is doing poorly in school and knows he will be grounded if he doesn't do good on the test. What will he choose? My point is simply this. All of your past experiences, all of your values, all of your physical wants and needs, all of your social wants and needs, all of your genetic predispositions are sectioned off in your brain as pro and as con and will battle each other for which side you will be pushed towards. You have no such thing as "choice", choice is the culmination of all of those aforementioned causes battling each other to sway your decision this way or that. Your mind is simply a computer mathematically deciding which way it perceives will make it the most happy. That is why I say determinism guides your "choices" because it is the culmination of every DNA strand and every second of your life up until that moment that decides your choice. "Furthermore, it is highly impractical to reject the notion of free will. For if free will disappears, then culpability will vanish as well. For how can a criminal possibly be sent to jail if he was FORCED to commit the crime? After all, without free will all actions including the act of crime would be forced. How can anyone ever discipline a child? If the child did something wrong, it would not be his or her fault. There was no free will and such actions were pre-determined." You are right in that it negates personal responsibility, but that does not mean that you couldn't keep rule of law or discipline your children. The justification for your actions that this philosophy would create works retroactively. Example, you murder someone, you are justified. I throw you in prison for said murder, I am also justified, the same for any other crime or misbehaving. Everything stays the same. This theory would only change our perception on how to carry out rehabilitation. This theory would show that what is more important and more sorely needed is to show criminals why they are a certain way and fix those faults that society deems necessary to fix. Psychiatry works much the same way and is more effective than punishment in fixing criminals. I'm not saying that we shouldn't still have prisons and just punishment, as fear of retribution is a big cause that would weigh on the mind of any potential wrongdoer. However, I am saying that it is more important to fix criminals than to punish them. You spoke too hastily on this subject, once you think it through this philosophy will cause no such anarchy and is much more practical in rehabilitating criminals or mischievous children than our methods do now. My argument is that there is no verifiable randomness and that this theory makes much more sense in view of how our minds work than we currently perceive. Think it through and vote with reason. Good day to all.