Bio-Environmental determinism is compatible with free will.

"Choice is the word that you use for many possible outcomes, and that which I use for a determined decision." I believe we have choices, because we have free will. If we did not have free will and determinism were true, then a determined decision implies that there are no actual "choices". For when one talks of "choice", he refers to the act of choosing. One cannot choose anything, if there were no other choices. Choosing implies that there are other alternative choices to be made. When one chooses something, he decides x over y, or x because y doesnt have such and such. He chooses x because of his preference over this. A determined decision cannot be called an actual choice, because although an individual may feel like he is making a "choice", he really isn't because the choice has already been made long before his time. His choice is more accurately called a determined decision, which the individual making the "determined decision" has only somewhat control over this. This is where my problem lies. I also disagree that moral responsibility should be left for another debate, seeing as though my main problem with compatibilism is that of moral responsibility. Determinism, if true, leaves out the possibility of other choices. Without the possibility of other choices, one is left with a "decision" (although I wouldnt call it that) that has already been determined or made, meaning you are not the complete author of this decision. If you are not the complete author of this decision, then whatever happens you cannot be held morally responsible. Since we are indeed, under the laws of nature, morally responsible for our actions, then determinism cannot be true or we have no free. That is the debate, whether they can coexist. I believe they cannot coexist, because with determinism, moral responsibility is left unanswered and unusable. The guilt we feel when making a morally wrong choice (if determinism were true) is completely absurd. We may feel "guilty", but we surely should not feel this way and in feeling this way, we are fooling ourselves. It seems likely, however, that we cannot block this guilt out of our minds, which is why I feel we are completely responsible for the actions that come from free will. That said, determinism cannot be true. Also, your logic is incoherent (i mean this in the nicest way). The argument you have constructed is not in its logical form. Thus, I cannot even disagree with it, because of its incompleteness of the correct logical form. If I were to somehow mentally put it into its logical form, I would question as to what you mean by a "reasonable exclusion" of these external factors. All your argument basically does is prove that we have free will, which I obviously agree with. When constructing an argument, as you have somewhat done, you are trying to get the conclusion out of your premises. Thus, your conclusion that we have free will is somethat that I completely agree with. "Rationality is directly supplementary to biological determinism; it is, metaphorically, that water in a cup will stay in the cup." Rationality is not supplementary to determinism, because under determinism we are unrational. We cant make any rational choices in life if determinism is true. Every action we do is already determined, so "thinking rationally" is not even logical. It isn't even logical to rationally think about whether or not determinism is true or false, because our decisions will be made by our previous causes and are already determined. If all our actions are determined, we are left with no rationality, no moral responsibility, and most importantly, no free will. Hence my argument: 1) If determinism were true, then we can't be held morally responsible for our actions. 2) We are morally responsible for our actions ____ 3) Determinism is not true