I never said it would “fly in court”. Your question confirms you have no idea what I am talking about.
Here is where I addressed your argument, but don’t try reading it if it is going to strain your brain too much.
I know nothing about Arminianism. But even if you don’t accept source compatibilism, the criminal justice system can accept it, and therefore hold someone criminally responsible for an act even if his “brain atoms made him do it.”
The criminal justice system, in my view, does not entail that libertarian free will exists. (Robert Sapolsky seems to think it does, which is why he thinks it should be abolished.)
Perhaps that is the most common belief in the lay public. But among scientists and philosophers who have most carefully considered this question, it is a decidedly minority opinion.
So what is the third option? That is, in effect, what I am asking. You seem to recognize that, if those are the only possibilities, then arguably free will (if by that we mean leeway freedom, which you have endorsed) cannot exist. But then you need to specify that third option. What is it?
Again, no. The courts do assume that agency exists. They do not assume that dualism is true.
No, that is wrong. None of those disciplines operate on that principle. The question of the source of our rational thinking is never part of that assessment, anymore than the fundamental basis of physical reality must first be determined before an engineer designs a bridge.
Also wrong. Physicalists who are compatibilists will believe that we are only collections of atoms, and also that we are agents.
You really need to stop talking about things you don’t understand.
Cool! And here’s a video explaining that the moon is hollow and built by aliens as a space station.
