So by that argument, cars don't exist either. Ontologically, this is true. The ontology of physics contains neither cars or free will.
So when someone points to a car and says, "that's a car", what are they doing if not pointing at a car?
If you can answer this question sensibly, then it should be straightforward to also understand what a victim means when they point to an accuser and says, "they attacked me of their own free will".
Free will is just as real as cars. Which is to say either you reject the existence of both, or you reject neither.
So when someone points to a car and says, "that's a car", what are they doing if not pointing at a car?
If you can answer this question sensibly, then it should be straightforward to also understand what a victim means when they point to an accuser and says, "they attacked me of their own free will".
Free will is just as real as cars. Which is to say either you reject the existence of both, or you reject neither.