there really is no real (convincing) argument against determinism. neither is there one against free will.
Hmm, at the risk of repeating myself, I still find this a fairly convincing argument:
Although there is no satisfactory definition of what Free Will
is, I would argue that the definition"FW is agency that is neither deterministic nor random",
is a satisfactory definition of what it
isn't (most people agree that FW is neither determined nor random) and, as the types of agency that FW is not are the only types of agency which can be conceived of (caused/uncaused), then, by it's own definition, there can be no such thing as FW.
so, as to my answer to "is 'will' free or determined?", i say "neither!", and answer with the paradoxal statement i started off with at the very beginning of the thread; "free will is complete surrender to necessity"
Well, perhaps to you that has some profound meaning, but I'm afraid to me it doesn't provide any real insight.
---
Anyway, perhaps contrary to the rest of my posts in this thread, I'm not really a hardline determinist in an absolute sense - obviously I can't know the nature of the universe. Maybe there is more to it than determinate and random events? And, tbh, I'd prefer that the thing I call 'I' to be something more exotic than a determinate automaton. Similarly, and no doubt in common with many others, one of the reasons that I find QM theory so appealing is largely because of its apparent weirdness; perhaps if a photon can be both a particle and a wave at the same time, then maybe FW can be both determinate and indeterminate?
Then again, beyond my egotistical need to feel special, I just don't see FW as a necessary concept. Determinism seems an adequate, indeed, the most simple conceptual model. I can't help but think that FW is an idea rather like that of God, something that many believe ought to exist, and so attempt to find a proof that that is the case.