But I didn't say THAT did I?
I'm trying to clarify what you are arguing towards.
Just to recap, we were discussing causation in relation to unpredictable physical outcomes and how they can't be ruled out under theism if a supernatural entity exists who can create
ex nihilo. I argued that something coming into existence for no reason at all and something coming into existence by creation ex nihilo by a non empirical entity for reasons we don't understand are both empirically indistinguishable. Assuming P1 of Kalam to be true does allow us to rule uncaused beginnings to existence (even in cases where something suddenly appears) but we wouldn't be able to empirically verify that P1 of Kalam is true in this context. We were also discussing how unpredictable events that are also effects are not required to have causes under what is stipulated by P1 of Kalam but more on that in a bit.
You now appear to be changing the topic to free will for some reason? Why? We were discussing Kalam and the problems with it. Kalam says nothing about free will in any of its premises.
So look at me when you're talking to me please and if you can't answer, don't rope in a strawman or a tin man and lecture them about fallacy types.
Where on earth did this come from? Why the sudden attitude Lion?
You are only being asked to explain something because you contest my explanation - the soul / free will.
We weren't discussing free will. We were discussing causation in relation to unpredictable physical occurrences. I therefore haven't contested anything in that area in the context of this discussion.
I assert that mind-over-matter is a perfect explanation for how billiard balls can unpredictably change direction.
We were discussing what we should expect of ball behaviour when the ball is
not being acted upon (as far as we know). So if a ball is stationary in the middle of a table and nothing acts upon it (there are no earthquakes expected, I'm not going to touch it etc) then we should expect it to stay right where it is. Yes?
If there exists supernatural non-empirical entities who could move it for reasons unknown to us then we can't say that it won't move for apparently no reason. If there can be uncaused changes of state then we can't say that it won't move for apparently no reason. If something like that did occur (the ball moved for apparently no reason) then we would not be able to empirically verify what had happened (supernatural non empirical causation v. no cause at all) and Kalam doesn't allow us to rule out either because the ball suddenly moving for apparently no reason doesn't bring anything into existence.
If there is a zero probability that it will move for apparently no reason then it is necessary that it behaves in the way it is and under those physical circumstances. But in that case, a miracle working being most certainly doesn't exist.