We contend that your characterization of equal forces in decision-making does not constitute a genuine choice. This situation can be likened to seeking coverage that lacks substantive provisions. To establish a valid choice, it is imperative that there is demonstrable evidence in the actions taken. The focal point of inquiry is not merely the range of options available, but rather the underlying causative factors that inform the choice. Every reality is underpinned by a cause; for instance, the existence of the Earth cannot be attributed to a balance of opposing forces of good and evil, but rather to a divine creator. The observable creation itself serves as evidence of this creator.

The assertion being made is that the entirety of creation is encompassed within the Creator. The manifestation of the Creator's work serves as evidence of His will in action. It is posited that freedom resides in the choices made in response to underlying causes. An individual possesses the autonomy to make choices that are influenced by the condition of their own soul. Furthermore, it is contended that freedom is applicable to an individual's cognitive processes, physical predispositions, and comprehension of the objects of choice, thereby enabling them to exercise agency in their decision-making.

Your argument presents a universal double negative, suggesting that an individual cannot possess a motive that serves as the driving force behind their will. You propose that true freedom necessitates the absence of any antecedent force in order to be genuinely considered freedom. This notion is akin to the assertion of providing universal coverage for every citizen, which does not align with the actual circumstances.