But you still have not addressed the fact that we have the consciously driven freedom to choose what to think about, what not to think about and how much depth to think about things.
That's untrue - I (and others) have addressed it repeatedly. You, on the other hand, have never once been able to refute the basic logic that any choice is either fully determined by what led up to it or not, and if not, then some part of it must be due to nothing that led up to it and is therefore random.
Not once. Just endless fallacies, assertion, misrepresentation, incredulity, and, quite often, total gibberish.
Going back to Sassy's opening post, it is abundantly obvious from this thread that our choices in such thought processes are selective in that we choose to think about topics which support what we want to believe.
That's probably why you never think about the arguments people put to you and endlessly repeat the same things as if nobody had said any of it.
Truly objective thought processes would be inclusive of supernatural possibilities rather than dismissive of them.
Just as soon as you can define "supernatural" and provide some objective reason (logic or evidence) to take it seriously, I'll happily think about it.
The fact is Alan, that people
have addressed what you've claimed, often and in great detail, and all we get in response is the same old script over and over and over again.