And as I have pointed out to you so many, many, many times, you never produce any evidence or reasoning to support your opinions. You just stick "imo" on the end, as though that settles it. Pot, kettle.
Or we cite the body of scientific study... minor quibble, but important I think.
In any case, the freedom of our wills (within limits, obv) is not something that either can or needs to be demonstrated with evidence or arguments.
There's an obvious reason for that which I think you're overlooking...
Whatever some smart-alecs on here choose to think (see what I did there?)
I did. I think it's called an 'ad hominem'...
we know from direct personal experience that we have free-will.
I know from personal experience that that magician tore up my card, and yet at the end of the trick there it was... it turns out that there's a difference between what we think we know and what's actually true. That's why we've developed systems to investigate our beliefs and assumptions and try to validate or refute them.
It's like consciousness: we know by direct personal experience that we are conscious. We can't prove it, but then, we don't need to. That's the point of "I think, therefore I am".
Actually, it's not - the point of 'I think, therefore I am' is not to establish consciousness but to establish existence; something has to exist to do the thinking. Whether it's conscious depends on the definition of consciousness used.
After all, I know from personal experience that claims of gods are all nonsense, so there we go, job done, right...
O.