Do you believe in free will?

[NoMoreFaith]

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 You must show causation can be superseded in order to show free-will that is free from causation.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.

Surely you must realise that if you argue freewill, then the you refers to the position of free will rather than individual.
We agree on that point, fine, but you are arguing for free will, hence why I asked for your alternative definitions you seem to withhold.

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

More to the point, its not free will as you redefine it.

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).

The problem you have is in this "free from some constraints" business. You define constraints only in terms of the external, but define free will as the expression of alternative choice. As was stated many times, that if you define it as free will if you ignore the internal constraints. Its merely the illusion of free will when you factor in the internal ones.
To demand otherwise, is still demanding a "3rd" agent of change beyond external and internal factors, otherwise your definition is illusion of free will and nothing more.
If we talk of the same thing, fair enough, its just a disagreement about what to call it. I say Illusion of Free Will, you say that expression IS free will.

I have. You haven't addressed them.

Please cite example that I have missed. I do try to address each point which is raised. Not to do so WOULD be intellectually dishonest if intentionally so.

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.

They may, but that does remove the obligation to show that the initial presumptions as stated and described as pre-assumptions when I made them are either lacking, or false.
If they can do neither, then their argument has problems. As has not been addressed, because its not your position, they would still be in the position to prove magic is possible before you factor it into any assumptive statements.

Let's not make the mistake of thinking we are having an argument, I answered the points you raised, and you are now stating that "a proponent of free will" would say this, and say that. I can only answer the person making the counter-argument.

At this juncture I would like to say I appreciate your efforts to do so.