I'd like to throw in a meta-argument at this time:
Since the OP is arguing against free will, he must declare that he has none, that he is subserviant to that which calls his attention at all times. This thread calls his attention, and he has not been here in a while. His position cannot be maintained while statements go unanswered, therefore if he must answer...but does not...he must have chosen not to, and has free will. Ergo, free will exists.
Since the OP is arguing against free will, he must declare that he has none, that he is subserviant to that which calls his attention at all times. This thread calls his attention, and he has not been here in a while. His position cannot be maintained while statements go unanswered, therefore if he must answer...but does not...he must have chosen not to, and has free will. Ergo, free will exists.