Show me your proof

[Baalzebutt]

Without the omnipotence of a god, there is no foreknowledge or predetermination. Therefore, we are free to choose our actions which will lead us down an unknown path to an unknown future.

As soon as the path and future are known, by anyone or anything, our ability to choose is eliminated. With a deity, our path is inevitable and free will does not exist. Without a deity, our path is unknown and necessarily advances based on free will.

Your conclusion is non-sequitur it seems. It seems problematic to have a being have foreknowledge of the future and yet we have free-will. It doesn't however prove a universe without a god can possibly have free-will however. Let alone that it does. It just proves that a universe with a being that has foreknowledge of the outcomes, is incompatible with free-will.

If time was such that the past, present, and future all exist for example, it can possibly be deterministic, because the future already exists and there is no way to change the future in the present, because it already exists.

Even if the present exists without the future existing frame point, you have not shown how naturalism can account for free-will when our biological minds are subject to physical cause and effect, so what exactly is choosing freely? What is not subject to cause and effect in the mind, and chooses without being caused to chose what it chooses by biochemical forces? And is compatibilism an oxymoron or not?et etc...

Because we experience time in a linear fashion, one must assume that the future does not exist.

From a naturalistic point of view, our brains function on a cocktail of chemicals. These chemicals not only influence, but are the deciding factor in the decisions we make. To remove the decision making process from its biological element is to presuppose the existence of the soul, which, by naturalistic standards, does not exist. The implication here is that we are somehow prisoners of our brains when, in point of fact, we ARE our brains. Therefore, the decisions we make are necessarily of free will, as dictated by our brain regardless of chemistry or physical damage.

Perhaps we need to define "free will". By your argument, it appears that in order to have free will we must be absolutely unencumbered by brain chemistry or any other factor that might influence us. This, however, is an impossibility because, aside from living in a complete vacuum, we are influenced by outside forces.

So, just to be clear, what is your idea of free will?