Natural Selection Seems Insufficient

[Jal]

You can believe gibberish if you want to. To me it resembles a cult.

[Angrboda]

Continuing the counter-scenarios, as noted, make your theory less believable rather than more so.  But regardless, there's a reason you stopped here.  Because you ran out of counter-scenarios.

No I didn't. I just thought it more productive to cut to the chase.

[Angrboda]

You can believe gibberish if you want to. To me it resembles a cult.

You still don't understand what an appeal to the stone is. Pity.

[Angrboda]

[Jal]

Posted by a person who can't seem to comprehend that, for many of us, our belief is a tautology.

[Deesse23]

The shortest distance between two points is a straight line.

What shape does planet Earth have (Disk/sphere/other)?

[The Grand Nudger]

It's hard to imagine a scenario where 2 + 2 = 5.

Oh that's right. That doesn't cut shit. To hell with intuition. Let's believe anything.

 
Is it not equally hard to imagine that 1+1+1=1?  This objection has no force according to you.  

Likewise, your incredulity has no weight in discussions about determinism....and that's complicated by, or perhaps entirely based on, your misunderstanding of what determinism is and says.  Just like you've told us that the trinity is real you've told us that soul based determinism is how things happen.

[Jal]

Let's try this again.  Suppose I throw a punch. What force moved my arm?

Nobody or no thing made you do it.

But the pain receptors in my body tell me it hurts. So who told me it hurts?

You seem to be confusing conscious acts [like throwing a punch] and stuff like thirst [which is a bodily function that tells you to drink water] - those are different types of actions

Not sure if you were reluctant to answer my last question. 
So in the meantime, I'll try another explanation.

You seem to think that a deterministic domino effect will suffice. Let's understand what that means. It means that, if the species is to survive,  blind causality must move the mammal towards food and drink, and force it to ingest this sustenance, on a regular, timely basis. And not too little, and not too much, e.g. drinking too much water at one meal can kill you, it happened a while back to a mother of two. 

Fine. Let's speculate that such occurs deterministically/ randomly, often enough to preserve the species.  (This coincidence is beyond my wildest imagination, but let's humor the idea for a moment). Did you notice something? No  hunger or thirst is needed in this domino effect. There is no apriori correlation between hunger and food-consumption. The chips just fall where they may.

Which contradicts mammalian experience. In real life, there IS a clear correlation between the two. Therefore determinism falls shorts of providing a complete picture of the world.

[Jal]

And, to boot, a domino effect, in of itself, lacks a First Mover.

Libertarian free will resolves both issues.

[The Grand Nudger]

Not at all. If fatalism is true..the idea that things just happen and nothing can change them - the thing you object to so often, all of the free willing in the world could be real...and still irrelevant to outcomes.