Free will probably exists in humans.

"My opponent has however (I believe incorrectly) deduced from this initial premise that the causal chain of events is strictly linear and that for every cause there is only one possible outcome. This is the point I would dispute strongly." I am unclear as to whether "for every cause there are multiple possible outcomes" means that there are several outcomes that arise simultaneously, or whether it means that there are several possible outcomes, any one of which could occur. I will assume the former, and later address the latter. My proof does not require that every cause has only one possible outcome; many causes produce multiple outcomes, and many outcomes are the result of multiple causes. This in no way refutes my proof. "While some stimuli will produce an easily predictable response, (for example if Bill pokes Ben in the arm with a needle, it will hurt Ben and he will instinctively flinch and move away) others can produce a variety of reactions and are much more difficult to predict, ( how Ben subsequently responds to the stimulus of pain is a good example. Does he smack Bill in the chops, run off crying, try to appease Bill etc.)" They are more difficult to predict, and perhaps even impossible in practice, but are still theoretically predictable given all relevant information. But if an outcome is not predictable, it is random, and therefore not free will. (More on randomness later.) "A probable reason for the multitude of responses (from Ben) is free will." Former meaning: Refuted above. Latter meaning: If there are multiple possible outcomes, then there is more information after the event than before it. This requires a creation of information; not only does this go against the first law of thermodynamics, but any truly new information is by necessity truly random. To put this more simply, imagine adding 2 and 3. 2 + 3 = 5. But what if 2 + 3 = 5 OR 6? This requires the creation of information; 2 + 3 alone cannot come up with 6. ======== 2: First Cause. This is effectively the same as a random event (since it came out of nowhere and therefore had no influences), so it can be combined with point 3. ======== 3: Randomness. "I contend that when rational beings choose to behave in a random manner the only possible cause can be free will." While valid, this statement begs the question. A better way to phrase it would be, "when rational beings act in a random manner the only possible cause can be free will." I will rebut this revised sentence in the next paragraph. If information arises out of nothing, it is random. Information arising out of nothing may *seem* impossible, but it probably indeed does happen (in quantum mechanics) and is still an alternative to free will. But more importantly, my opponent has not shown how entities possessing free will are even capable of acting randomly while still maintaining control over decisions. The only reason I bring up randomness is that it is the only possible alternative to determinism. My opponent must show determinism to be probably false before the randomness argument even matters. Until my opponent shows that determinism is probably false, victory defaults to CON. Subsequently, if determinism is shown to be false, the only possible alternative is that events are random. At that point, these arguments become relevant. "My opponent states that randomness is not a synonym for free will and he is right, however to take the implication from this that the two are mutually exclusive is not remotely logical and he needs to explain this conclusion in a more satisfactory manner." If an outcome is selected randomly, the ultimate decision is not being made by the rational entity; the outcome would be random whether or not the entity was rational. It directly follows from the definition of free will that randomness is never equated with free will. ======== My opponent's examples are not true arguments. They are in fact already refuted: "I am prepared to accept the possibility that I am deluding myself." His observation that he is making choices is an illusion. "As a teenager I made a decision to start smoking. Peer pressure exists and it is natural for youths to act rebelliously but I made a free choice to take up an activity that I knew to be damaging to my health and also addictive." It was not a free choice. My opponent merely was under the illusion that it was a free choice. However, I have proven that free choice is impossible, making this example and all other examples irrelevant. ---- Benjamin Libet, a neuroscientist at the University of California, found compelling evidence to suggest that what we perceive as being a conscious choice is in fact not. His study found that people's decisions were predetermined by about a half-second; what they thought was a conscious choice was in fact a calculation by the subconscious mind [1], [2]. [1] http://www.nytimes.com... [2] http://www.consciousentities.com...