Do you believe in free will?

[genkaus]

Therefore. The ultimate therefore here...
You must show causation can be superseded to show free will.

Incorrect. You must show causation can be superseded in order to show free-will that is free from causation. Since that has never been my argument, I must show nothing of the sort.

Otherwise, we are simply saying the argument doesn't disprove magic because it starts with the assumption there is no magic.
I hold my hand up here, I assume no magic. But the onus of proof is always on "Magic".

You're getting a free ride that nobody has called you up on displaying a logical argument FOR free will, instead of trying to pick holes in (hard) determinism. Its not the same thing.

I have provided arguments - non-magical, natural arguments for free-will.

You cannot supercede free will as part of natural law unless you prove it is part of natural law.
Why don't you say that we discard magic as part of natural law and supersede it with science.

Why don't you argue some scientific reasoning for free will, or is it just in the air word play with no reference to the real world?

(Just as a side note; It may appear aggressive as a comment, but I don't wish you to take it aggressively.)

I have. It is just not free-will as you understand it.

Your arguments make it appear so. So far, your views seem to be compatabilist, whilst mine have been strictly hard determinism.

Can you define, in one paragraph what "Free Will" means to you before we proceed any further.

I dislike compatibilism since it fails to address the assumed supernatural component to free-will and in the process, assumes it as well.

By free-will, I mean the capacity of an agent to choose from a set of alternatives free from some constraints (external to himself).

Then you need to start putting up some arguments how it can be compatible then.

I have. You haven't addressed them.

I have repeatedly said I do not rule it out, simply require evidence of its existence. Otherwise its unnecessary "woo".
Thats not a dismissal, but I do demand an argument for. All you've done is picked holes, and added statements which were contrary to the position presented.
Much like this one.

Well, I do rule out the free-will as free from causation. Since that has never been my position, I'm not required to provide any evidence for it.

It would be if you were referring to an argument instead of a statement OF my presumptions.

I do so, in order to reference the argument itself. I do so, so that flaws in the argument can be traced back to the assumptions made, so that if they themselves are inconsistent or in error, this can be shown.
Its called constructing a logical argument, not "loading" the question.

If the presumption of the article of arguments can be show to be true, and that a logical connection between those presumptions and the argument exists, this is proof of the argument.

Logical discussion relies on pointing out the fallacies inherent in the presentation of the argument.
What you're doing is saying the argument is loaded because I provided observable truths.

What you fail to understand is that the question was not loaded against me, it was loaded against any proponent of free-will as you understand it. If it had been loaded against me, I would not have answered the question - which I did.

Now, as to the assumptions you made - I do not contest them as factual, because I accept them as facts as well. But any proponent of free-will free of causality would not presume that the "future is predetermined" to be factual and therefore would consider your question to be loaded.