Question

I just want to ask a question to make sure I understood your counterargument to the deterministic argument. Based on what you said, if someone does not believe in a soul, then clearly, according to that view, there is no free will. After all, he presumably accepts the principle of causality, and if causality is true, then there is only causality or randomness (which in practice is also causality in this world, like rolling a die. It is not random; it is determined by the force of the throw, the direction, the wind, and so on).
Now, clearly the deterministic argument will assume there is no soul if someone does not believe in one. The question of whether there is a soul is a completely separate discussion, and in our world we have observed again and again that the principle of causality is true. So it follows that there is absolute causality according to those who do not believe in a soul.
You did not say all of this directly, but did I understand you correctly? Is there no free will according to someone who does not believe in a soul? That is, you (and other religious people) believe that there is a soul that is not subject to causality, and only through it does the third mechanism operate — free will — while you also accept the principle of causality in the world. Therefore, if someone does not believe in a soul, there is no reason for him to assume the existence of the third mechanism, just as there is no reason at all for him to assume the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Russell’s teapot. According to materialists, there is only a physical body subject to the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology. And in that case, the deterministic argument is definitely correct. Because in that case, it is clear that one must accept the assumption that there is only causality (or randomness, but again, it is not really different from causality in the world, as you know).
Just making sure I understood. Thank you very much.