According to those who do not believe in the soul, there is no free choice.

I just want to ask a question to make sure I understand your counter-argument to the deterministic argument. From what you said, if someone doesn’t believe in the soul, it’s clear that their system doesn’t have free will. After all, they (probably) accept the principle of causality, and if causality is true, there is only causality or randomness (which is actually also causality in this world, like rolling a die. It’s not random, it’s determined by the strength of the throw, direction, the wind, and so on).
Now, it is clear that the deterministic argument would assume that there is no soul if someone does not believe in it. The question of whether there is a soul is a completely different discussion, and in our world we have repeatedly observed that the principle of causality is true. So it follows that there is absolute causality according to those who do not believe in the soul.
You didn’t say all this directly, but did I understand you correctly? Is there no free choice according to the method of those who do not believe in the soul? That is, you (and other religious people) believe that there is a soul that is not subject to causality and through it alone the third mechanism (free choice) is carried out, when you also accept the principle of causality in the world. Therefore, if someone does not believe in the soul, there is no reason for him to assume the existence of the third mechanism just as there is no reason to assume the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Russell’s teapot. According to his materialist method, there is only a physical body subject to the laws of physics, chemistry and biology. And in this case, the deterministic argument is certainly correct. Because in this case, it is clear that the assumption that there is only causality (or randomness, but again, it is not really causally different from the child as you know) must be accepted.
Just making sure I understand. Thank you very much.