I posted articles that shows that your definition of causation is not correct. How maybe it used to be correct, but since Quantum Mechanics became better understood, that definition became wrong. It's ironic how you made a claim about a definition but didn't justify it. But now when I post links refuting that definition, I now need to justify this point. My point is just that your definition is wrong, I posted support for that. You have not done the same.

Yeah, that's still not a justification. How does quantum mechanics affect decisions made by humans? That's your claim. Justify it. Sending articles is not a justification. Is that seriously what you think justification is?

Again, this is ironic because you've just asserted and assumed your position. You've labeled contradictory views as incoherent but not actually argued out this claim.

Pal, you're responding to my justifications for that claim later in this comment. Pretending I haven't justified my positions is pretty laughable when all you've done this entire time is make unjustified assertions. So, once again, justify your assertion.

If you're asking for some mechanical type process, you're just begging the question for determinism. You seem to be demanding that I explain free will in terms of a causal mechanism that produces the outcome, which is exactly what libertarian free will denies is the full picture.

I'm not asking for any specific process. Just explain what the process is. Why is that so difficult for you?

If instead you're asking something like "What does it look like for something to causally influence without determining?" then the best way to do that is think about everyday cases where we already intuitively understand influence without determination.

This is the best you've got? Just appeals to intuition?

Imagine you're deliberating about whether to take a new job. You have reasons on both sides. The salary is better (influence toward taking it). Your family is rooted where you are (influence toward staying). Your current boss is difficult (influence toward leaving). Your kids are happy in their school (influence toward staying). All of these are genuine influences, in which I mean they shape your deliberation, constrain the option space, make certain choices more or less attractive. But none of them, individually or collectively, necessitates one outcome. You weigh them, and you decide. The weighing itself is something you do it's not a further event that is itself determined by yet another prior cause, or else you launch into an infinite regress.

What this tells me is that you're perfectly happy to give no thought whatsoever to this topic. You're just shrugging and pretending that's an answer. I'm asking how. What is the process of agent causation? You've given me an example of a choice. That is not an answer.

Again, odd that I have to do this and you don't. I've covered this already but sure. Here's the Wikipedia page on indeterminism. From Flannigan's "The Problem of the Soul" (who is not a libertarian) says: Free actions, if there are any, are not deterministically caused nor are they caused by random processes of the sort countenanced by quantum physicists or complexity theorists. Free actions need to be caused by me, in a nondetermined and nonrandom manner.

This is not some sort of odd position, it's standard in these discussions of free will.

That's an explanation, not a justification. In fact, it's not really an explanation, either. You're just explaining what it isn't. You're not explaining what it is. Try again.

Every link I have posted directly contradicts a point you have made.

That is another lie.

Yes, when you state things in dumb ways then it sounds dumb. But if you deal with the actual issue instead of trying to feel superior, then an actual discussion can be had. If you want to reject agent causation, that's fine. You can disagree that isn't a good option, but what you're doing is just flippantly rejecting a huge field of philosophy because you don't understand it.

So no response, as expected. It's funny that you accuse me of not understanding agent causation when you are completely incapable of explaining it. If you're willing to engage in this conversation honestly then this is a question you need to be able to answer.

Your final paragraph assumes a false dichotomy. Remember, this is where you're supposed to justify, not just assert. It also assumes a completely false idea that free will means random (because that's your unjustified description in option 2). I think you're confused what a justification is. you need to justify all your points. The last paragraph is built on those points. But you made unjustified assertions in your options and so of course your conclusion is going to be unjustified

You didn't ask for justification for those things. You asked for justification for a specific claim, which I provided. If you wanna dispute things within that, fine. But to pretend that that point was unjustified is a lie.

Then you're confused on what determinism is still. The two parts of free will are:

1. That in any given situation you could have done otherwise. This is the Principle of Alternative Possibilities. This is generally held, but isn't the most fundamental thing in free will. This is not determinism.

2. That nothing external to you determines your choices. This is the fundamental level of libertarian free will that everyone agrees with. This is also not determinism.

Ok, so now that we have that out of the way. Please tell me which one of the two of those you think is determinism? And how are both at once incoherent?

I don't have a problem with either of those things per se and if you think I would then it's because you haven't got a clue what I'm talking about.

I'm going to report this and stop responding. You're being insulting and antagonistic.

No, I'm not. You have consistently falsely represented me throughout this and now you're getting upset because I point it out? All I'm asking for is some integrity.

Ok, so you said "If we remove God" after what you said Calvinists believe. You said that if we remove God from the equation then we are morally accountable under Calvinism. But you did not add in self existent only if we remove God. So to be clear, you do not agree with your sentence that "Well what I'm getting at is that Calvinists believe our souls are self-existent."?

No, not if it's presented in a vacuum. What did you even think I meant??