Determinism includes causality, but does it necessarily follow from it?

Yes.

Why, exactly?
And does that mean that free will stands in contradiction to the principle of causality?

And does this basically mean that free will is in contradiction to the cosmological argument?

I also didn’t understand the answer. A person’s free choice, according to the dualist, isn’t that a cause for the continuation of the process? (And on the other hand, doesn’t it constitute the opposite of determinism?)

Free will is not opposed to the principle of causality. But it is the exception that proves the rule.

Sorry:
Free will is “opposed!” to the principle of causality. But it is the exception, etc.

Yes, okay, I think I get it now.
A cause is a sufficient condition.

I was trying to ask why the decision (what I chose) would not be a cause of what results from it. Now I understand that the response is referring to the very act of choosing itself (not to its relation to its outcome, which is certainly causal).

And the claim is that my choice necessarily has no cause in the sense of a condition known in advance, because otherwise it would not be a choice but a necessity.

I don’t understand what is getting so tangled up here. If everything has a cause, then everything is determined by its causes, and from that it follows that there is no free will. What isn’t clear?
And from here it follows that anyone who believes in free will has to exclude acts of choice from the principle of causality. That’s all.
The cosmological argument assumes that every entity in our experience has a maker (= cause, source). That is true. At most one can say that there is someone who chose the world, so he is the cause of the world.

Why is there no cause in a choice? The cause is that I chose.

And why did you choose?

There is an element that exists in the world (free will), and it provides causes for the actions I performed.

To the questioner,
And what is the cause of that element?

To David,
It was created in the human being. The cause is the Cause of causes.

Excellent. You answered your own question.
Choice is a primary factor with no prior cause preceding it. Otherwise it simply would not be real choice, but rather the result of some cause.

Why without a cause that produces it?
The same cause as the cause that brought it about that I have hands. So I have choice, and it has a cause, and it itself constitutes a cause for the actions I perform.

Come on… you’re going in circles.
It constitutes a cause for your actions, but what constitutes a cause for it?

When you choose A instead of B there are three possibilities:

1) Specific causes compelled the “choice” (and therefore this is not a choice)
2) The “choice” is random
3) You made a real choice that does not depend on the circumstances and is not random. You moved an electron without any physical force acting on it

1 – This is not a choice. It is exactly like a computer responding according to its algorithm.
2 – Again, not a choice. It is a difficult question whether randomness exists at all, and maybe one can learn that it does from quantum theory.
3 – A real choice. And it is necessarily a primary factor that no causes influenced, because otherwise it turns into answer “1”

I don’t understand how this answers what I wrote. Why do the causes have to compel the choice?

They don’t.
If causes compel, then it isn’t a choice; it is a regular causal mechanism.
If despite that you still decide that there is real choice, then it contradicts the principle of causality (and if you still hold by it, then you need to exclude choice from the principle of causality).

If things are still not clear, I can only recommend to you The Science of Freedom by Michael Abraham. An unknown author.

Maybe you didn’t understand that:
The principle of causality says that everything has a cause. Everything. Also the fact that you have hands, and also existence as a whole and choice and the like.