And you do not seem to understand the nature of human free will.
For example, when considering the question of souls in animals, you want to show there is no appreciable difference between humans and animals, so you consciously choose to quote the similarities between them. Whereas I want to show the marked difference between humans and animals, so I deliberately choose to illustrate the unique attributes of humans. The driving forces for these actions derive from conscious will of the human soul and can't be defined by the materially deterministic model of the human brain. It is certainly not random, nor can it be pre defined by uncontrolled deterministic chains of events. It is driven by conscious acts of human will.
Oh dear, your usual hotch potch of baseless assertions, logical fallacies and misunderstandings. I'm beginning to think this penny is never going to drop for you. Just throwing in a few bolded words
want, deliberate, conscious is not going to change the fundamental logic of the situation. That we have wants, that we have consciousness, that we form intentions, these things do not qualify us as escaping the fundamental laws of nature or of logic. A meaningful choice is one that takes account of relevant considerations; a choice that is free of all relevant considerations is not a choice at all, it is merely a random event and this is true whether the decision is made biologically, spiritually, computationally or popsaquidigiously.
Your position on this is somewhat akin to the compatibilist account of free will, with added spiritual, thrown in for good measure. Consider an inmate exercising in the prison yard. He can do anything he wants in the prison compound, he can jump up and down, he can blow a raspberry, he can recite Shakespeare sonnets in a French accent, so, within the compounds of the prison, we could say he has several degrees of freedom. And suppose this compound is large, so large that the walls are over the horizon, he may not be aware of his imprisonment. The walls are so far away that he could set off running and never actually reach the walls. A compatibilist will say that this amounts to free will and this is analogous to the free will that we humans enjoy. To a compatibilist, it is not so much the fundamental overarching truth of the situation that matters, what matters to the compatibilist is what is important, rather than what is true. For the prisoner in the compound, he has effective freedom as he is unaware of the restrictions on his liberty and that is what matters.
So, of course, I would agree with you, like the prisoner in the compound we have seeming freedom, being unaware of those distant walls. When we make a choice we are identifying our preference, but we do not, can not, choose what our preference is in the first place, just as also we cannot choose our beliefs. This is why we are not ultimately free, and also why ultimate freedom would in fact be meaningless.