1. One cannot force someone else to do something freely.
2. If (1) is true, then compatibilism is false.
3. If compatibilism is false, then we have libertarian free will.
4. Therefore, we have libertarian free will (from 1-2, 3).
(1) Should be accepted as a matter of course. It seems undeniable that if some agent has performed some act because he was forced to do so, then he did not do it of his own free will; he was not the originator of his action.
(2) States that upon (1)’s acceptance, compatibilism is false. I do not expect compatibilists to agree with this premise. They may very well believe that (1) can be true and yet compatibilism also be true, and hence (2) would be false. It could be claimed compatibilism only teaches that determinism and free will both are true and work together in some way. Aside from the verbiage “in some way,” one can also press a further objection. Especially with respect to theological determinism, it’s difficult to see how any cause of some act in a primary sense can avoid just doing the act for the agent himself! Whatever the cause in causal determinism, it is that cause, and not the agent, that is determining (in a causal, not epistemological, sense) that such an action should be performed. In essence, he is forcing an action that is purported to be free. But then per (1) this is false.
(3) Might be objected to by so-called hard determinists. They could claim that while compatibilism is false, determinism is nonetheless true, so that libertarian free will is not possessed by anyone. To this we might wish to consider that determinism of this sort can never be rationally affirmed. For in order to affirm it as true, she must realize that everything, even this affirmation of determinism’s truth, is determined! In that case, it is not that she has performed an act of free will or free thinking, but rather that whatever was the cause of her action ensured she would do the action. Much like a GI Joe or child’s action figure, this action figure did nothing of any sort—it merely acted as the conduit or puppet of the one playing the game. In the same way, hard determinism surely cannot be rationally affirmed, for one did not reason to arrive at his conclusion, but was merely determined to repeat it. But then it follows that we have at least some libertarianly free actions, and hence (3) is true.
(4) Follows as a logical entailment, and so cannot be denied. We live in a libertarianly free universe, and hence we are held under an incredible sense of responsibility, morally, to God. What will you do with this choice? Choose to honor God, to be holy? Or choose to live in a state of rebellion against God?
 The difficulty with compatibilism is this reference to “in some way,” thus referencing mystery. While this may work as a defense, it does not work as an account of free will.
All posts, and the blog Possible Worlds, are the sole intellectual property of Randy Everist. One may reprint part or all of this post so long as: a) full attribution is given (Randy Everist, Possible Worlds), b) all use is non-commercial, and c) one is in compliance with the Creative Commons license at the bottom on the main page of this blog.