For a truly independent choice to exist, one that is not influenced by the mind's perception of any given message, it is critical that the mind first possesses a clear understanding of the available options. This comprehension allows the mind to make an informed decision regarding whether to accept or reject the message at hand. Moreover, since it is imperative for the mind to interact with the message prior to making a choice, there exists a causal influence on the decision-making process that precedes the act of choosing. As a result, your understanding of freedom comes under scrutiny, as the very act of making a choice is shaped by the mind's interpretation of the situation. As I previously pointed out, if the will does not serve as the initiator of our decisions, then any outside persuasive force would compromise our ability to exercise free choice. This would amount to coercion, which stands in stark contrast to your definition of what it means to be free. Before we can make a choice, it is crucial for the mind to have a thorough understanding of the options at hand; only after this comprehension can the will make an affirmative decision to either accept or reject those choices. Therefore, it follows that understanding is an essential prerequisite for the process of decision-making. However, your argument seems to suggest that for a choice to qualify as free, the will must independently chart its own course without leaning on any external justifications or reasons. This leads us to a significant question: does one actively choose to permit the mind to either accept or reject the information related to the object of choice? In this light, the mind effectively takes on the role of the will, indicating that understanding is instrumental in the decision-making process that precedes the act of choosing. In the framework of our ongoing dialogue about choice, when you state that God does not overstep certain boundaries, are you implying that He consciously avoids infringing upon our free will? If this interpretation holds true, it suggests that the choices we make are indeed self-determined. One could argue that our decisions originate from an intrinsic sense of volition, as any rationale or reasoning behind our choices must come from within our own will. If there were to be an external rationale, it would inevitably exert some form of influence on our decision-making, thereby coercing us toward a specific choice, which fundamentally contradicts the idea of genuine freedom. Do you genuinely hold the belief that for the will to be deemed free, it must operate in a state of complete equality—unencumbered by any external influences or factors that could potentially sway the choice? I would be more than willing to delve deeper into this topic if you’re interested.