The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
4 Points

There is free will.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/24/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 947 times Debate No: 46657
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)




My argument is regarding determinism.I'm willing to debate anyone who believs in any type of free will.I believe that free will in general is an illusion of will thus we somewhat get dictated.Also please don't take point's off spelling and gramma..i'm dyslixec.


I accept.

Also, I'd like to establish that we accept the universe exists for the purpose of this debate.

Leeeeeet's debate.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting.

Yes i agree.

I will try to be clear with my argument.
I want to start off with the bases of my dabete.
I believe the intertwined laws of nature controls our perceptions of the world and our actions.
This means the environment,genetics,evolution,societys,relashionships,time and space,how you were raised etc.
There is no sign for me that suggests free will can exist.


I agree that laws of nature do "control" us. However, that control does not extend to consciousness.

Heisenburg's uncertainty principle states that position and momemtum cannot be simulataneously known at the smallest level [1]. There's a lot more to it, but the general idea is that classical physics and the simplicity of cause and effect go out the window at quantum levels. Apply these principles to the brain, and the brain is an uncertin creature.

It's very hard to figure out exactly how to brain works. For the most part, physicists are stiumped. It might be impossible for something to completely understand itself. And if that level of metacognition is not possible, then free will is open and possible. We can study the physics to the utmost degree, but still never predict what a human mind will decide. Until physics can be used to read thoughts and predict cognitive actions, free will is still alive.

Debate Round No. 2


Thank you for being reasonable and accepting the idea as a hole.

But I do have to point out to the audience though that this debate is in the philosophical Category not the scientific.
therefore by then accepting my opinion and then pointing out somewhat scientific fact to
contradict doesn't make sense if you're still debating against me. ???

I already know that the quantum level has it's own physics and it doesn't
seem to effect the general laws of classical physics why are you saying the simplicity
of cause and effect go out the window at quantum levels and then tagging that you can apply
the principles to the brain,and the brain is an uncertain creature? Is this you trying to be
philosophical/crawl out of the debate.

Again this debate is not in the scientific category.


You argued that nature controls us. I agree that we're entirely natural beings.

What I disagree with is that that implies fate. Our thought process is not predestined because there's no way to predict what someone is going to think. The reason I was bringing up the uncertainty principle is because in all likelihood our brains run very much on the quantum level. It's impossible to predict, so therefore we escape fate.

Sorry for being "philosophical" and using "science." I'm merely trying to show you a sign that suggests free will can exist.

So let me rephrase my earlier comment, nature may shape us and give us a domain in which to live and think, but it doesn't control our every thought.
Debate Round No. 3


If you Think we are entirely natural beings,shouldn't it mean we are 100% predictable

I do believe in fate.we are just not able to predict certain events thus modern computers
aren't capable of viewing every single factor that makes us run and putting it all together to give us a sum.
But one day we will

By you saying It's impossible for us
to estimate the quantum level,you're practically just like the people saying back 80 years
ago that humanity couldn't go to the moon because they thought it was impossible.Also you can see this
accruing countlessly between scientific studies

You give no evidence for your claims that suggests that nature doesn't control our every thought

So for me to sum up everything...
Is that if the big bang was natural and every thing that came out of it was natural,wouldn't it
suggest that we are 100% natural ergo we can some day predict the future with accuracy.
Patterns emerge from what is natural.


It's not a matter of gumtion or ingenuity. The brain fully understanding itself is an impossibility. Allow me to ask a few simple questions:

What are you thinking about?

Are you thinking about what you are thinking about?

Are you thinking about the point of these questions?

Or are you thinking about you thinking about the point of these questions?

The point is that your cognition of your thoughts is always one step behind the actual thought. You can't be cognizant of what you are thinking at any one time. It's an impossibility.

Predicting future events or evaluating current happenings with certainty at the quantum level is sceintifically impossible. It's a crazy concept to wrap your head around--one that even Einstein was resistent to accept--but our studies of quantum mechanics assert that the universe is random and runs on probability.

Also, here's a quick reading if you're curious.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by reece 3 years ago
Lol my opponent was pro for free will being real.But he still proved my point that there is no free will.
please whach the Sam Harris video it shows how psyduck was conforming that it doesn't exist by saying we don't know where our pure thought come from.
Posted by reece 3 years ago
reece this video of Sam Harris can exsplain the illousion of free will in a different way.
Maximus_Wamson_IV: you don't know what i mean by the intertwined laws of nature or you just can't comprehend the full complexion.
Posted by Maximus_Wamson_IV 3 years ago
Well free will is defined as the ability to choose how to act. Simple. Respectfully I have to say you decided to post this debate and that's without the laws of nature and/or physics dictating over your decision or anyone else adding to the post. Do I believe our society hinders it's citizens from making decisions and acting yes of course we see that everyday, but there's more to it than that. The factors could be numbered in the thousands that influence us, but as that maybe we essentially have control over what we take in and a perfectly rational person knows when that control is taken in some degree. Is that free will in itself? Maybe though free will can be illusion in some cases and in other cases in history the majority have had it taken away, without even knowing it. To state that we have 0 percent free will is inaccurate, but it could be argued that without free will humanity as a whole would not be where we are today say 20 years ago to now, or even further ago. That's including the good and bad things in our society, free will takes and gives us purpose, the illusion of it would end in utter chaos. Wars have been waged because of the illusion and I'm sure there will be more fought in the same.
Posted by reece 3 years ago
I believe in 0% of free will.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
That depends on how you define free will, that is also something dennet addressed
Posted by reece 3 years ago
Okay so I believe in determinism.The other debater can believe in any type of free will
Posted by black_squirrel 3 years ago
determinism and free will are two different things

Are you claiming that the world is deterministic, and that there is no free will?
According to Dennett, determinism and free will are perfectly compatible.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
what is this in regards to?

The bible or determinism.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was perfectly legal in arguing science, as Con did not stipulate otherwise. Pro argues that free will exists because we cannot understand the human mind, that at the quantum level, it's impossible to predict what the human mind would do. Con never addressed this, instead he complained about irrelevancies. The sources used are hard to give sources points to, although citing the uncertainty principle was arguably good enough, considering the dearth of sources in the debate. I'm going to give 1 point for sources, because I don't think Pro earned 2, so I'm placing a vote in the S&G category in order to give that 1 point.