1) Defining causation was problematic for centuries, but in modern physics we have proof that it can't exist according to its classical conception (Bell's inequality). So you don't define free will but you do mischaracterize causality.I am not conflating choice and cause. What I am saying is that free will requires choice and causation.
Renders nonsensical, useless, pointless, and illogical.I have no idea on what you mean by 'negates'.
How so?
Choice is central to all definitions of free will and by using it as you do you admit free will into your argument of its non-existence.
I don't remember saying "causing..according to...free will". So I don't even know how to reply to this.
causing them according to his will then free will
I am beggining to think you have made a lot of conclusions based on just a few sentences I have written so far.
It takes a single statement to negate an argument