You gave an argument against free will based on Determinism, but there are other good and even better arguments IMO. Like the science-centrist arguments of Neuroscience , Psychological and the Evolutionary Arguments. Then there are the philosophical Arguments from Divine Predestination or Fate. There are still more but the fun is on the discovery.

I want to, but Determinism sounds pretty reasonable. Everything is just going with the flow from the big bang, including what happens in our consciousness. Do I think this because of my own will, or because of events set into motion billions of years ago? 🤔

No I don't.

ya'll some neo and oracle bustas up in here.

yes, as entities that are conscious of consciousness, we can steer ideas and actions with our will and intent.

This may or may not have universal implications, so stop trying to be all grandiose. we're barely existing conscious ants that have imaginations. does that mean the universe won't experience entropy? one of these things is not like the other.

Yes. Every person has to believe in it to accept the notion of good and evil.

You have as much free will as a leaf or a fish.

Yes. I could talk about quantum indeterminacy as a scientific argument for it, but fundamentally, I believe in it because I want to[1]. I don't like the idea of being a deterministic machine with a fate I can't influence with active choices. It's not provable either way with the current state of science, so I choose to believe my preferred option is the correct one.

[1] Of course such a statement presumes free will. I think I want to, anyway.

OK let's just start with the assertion that there of a casual link back to the beginning of time.

We will begin with the big one first. We don't even know if time had a beginning.

If we assume that time began at the instant of the big bang. There is no plausible link between my bean induced fart, and some random energy fluctuation, there are just too many chaotic interactions between then and now.

There are so many things we don't know, making the extremely bold claim that free will doesn't exist, is dangerously naive.

We can't even solve Navier-Stokes; neuronal interaction is so far beyond what we are currently capable of, it's ridiculous.

My recommendation to anyone contemplating this question. Assume free will exists; if you are wrong, it will made no difference; you were destined to believe that anyway.

Local causality doesn't imply unbroken universal causality. In fact, the idea everything is a purely deterministic projection of some initial state is far weirder than the idea that stochastic actions can influence a partially deterministic state.

Yes.

I observe free will directly. Watch: I will choose of my own free will to type a tilde at the end of this sentence instead of a period~ Behold free will.

Everything that says we don't have free will depends on indirect observations that blatantly make faulty assumptions. Do our senses accurately tell us about the state of the universe, and ourselves within it? Are our interpretations of this infallible?

Most egregious is the assumption that classical mechanics governs the mind, when we know that at a deep level, classical mechanics governs nothing. Quantum mechanics is the best guess we have at the moment about how objects work at a fundamental level. Many will say neurons are too big for the quantum level. But everything is at the quantum level. We just don't typically observe the effects because most things are too big to see quantum effects from the outside. But we don't only look at the brain from the outside.

Nor can we say that the brain is the seat of consciousness. Who can say what the nature of reality is? Does space even exist at a fundamental level? What does it mean for consciousness to be in a particular place? What's to say it can only affect and be affected by certain things in certain locations? Especially when we can't pinpoint what those things are?

So yeah I believe in free will. It's direct observation vs. blatantly faulty reasoning.