Yes, it seems that most posters in this thread accept that decisions taken on the basis of chance can constitute free will. However that invalidates a lot of other arguments as they related to free will - like the old classic:

"How can we hold people morally responsible if they dont have free will"? Well, if you can't, then why is it okay to hold people morally responsible whose actions are the result of a random process? That doesn't seem any 'fairer' to me.

Free will does not exist. I deny having 'the experience of free will' (what is that?).
A question for you. Do you deny the physical brain as the sole 'seat' of our thoughts? Do you hold to mind body dualism?

For me paragraph 4 does not hold. Paragraph 5 is too vague for me to comment on. And as for the last paragraph, sure, you can critize anyone whose words and actions do not correlate. But thats probably not what you mean...
As I understand it, what you are saying is this: atheists call christians hypocrits for acting differently than what they profess to want, can christians then call atheists hypocrits for not professing to believe in free will when its so obvious that they act like it? Is that what you're trying to say?

Notice that your concept of "fair" in the context of "random" implies that you are using "arbitrary" as your understanding of "random."

How do I know I am "given a set of random characters"? Am I told the stochastic process that generated them?

I don't agree. I am using 'is the result of a stochastic process' as my definition of random. I can't help thinking that we have been here before. I completely disagree that 'random' and 'arbitrary' are synonmys.

I also don't even understand what you mean by '"fair" in the context of "random"', whatever it means, I was not using fair in that context.

You yourself claimed that a random universe meant no free will, and that randomness does not mean free will - therefore you will have to ask that question of yourself and not me.

This makes no sense to me at all sorry.
I don't even see how this post relates to my previous post

Here's your chance to practice basic arithmetic.

1=1 is the same as 1=3+8-9-1.

What does it mean for two equations to be the same? If they have the same truth-value? In that case, I agree.

You can't see how me showing you that a set of randomness does not imply it wasn't caused does not refute this:

Somehow, I find that hard to believe.

If you deny the experience, then this conversation does not pertain to you.

In certain ways, yes.

If I poke my finger with a pin, is the pain in my finger or in my head? I understand that the finger is the source of the feeling of pain, but the sense of pain is processed through my brain.

Similarly, when I have a conflicting opinion on a subject, I sometimes use the following phrasing to describe my position: "My brain is telling me X, but I feel that it might be Y." I don't know precisely where the sense of Y is coming from, but it's not being recognized as cognitive thoughts like the rest of my cognitive thoughts on the matter.

The hypocrite thing at the end was an afterthought that I wish I had not included. I tried to tie it back to the (often legitimate) criticism of Christians to focus in on the idea of the misalignment of beliefs, but it seems that my set up did not portray that in the way that I had meant it.

You haven't defined a 'set of randomness'. Assuming it means, 'a set of numbers defined by a stochastic process', and we accept a definition of 'free will' that involves decisions which are made by a 'stochastic process', then fine.

I had assumed that 'free-will' proponents were not using such a definition, mainly because the only known naturally occuring (i.e. not merely a construction in pure mathematics, but something that actually occurs) stochastic process is in quantum mechanics.

A definition of free-will that involves quantum mechanics is meaningful, but not what I had understood by the term. Perhaps an experiment could be devised to test if quantum phenomena have a measurable impact on our 'decisions'? I don't know enough about quantum physics to be sure if this is possible, perhaps the uncertainty principle makes it a priori impossible.

A definition of free-will that involves some unknown naturally occuring 'stochastic process' is fine too, and I will respect your belief in an such a process if you have one, just as I respect peoples belief in god.

As best as I can tell, it seems that "stochastic process" is defined to be "not a deterministic process." Would you say this is a valid definition under your understanding of the term?

What do you mean by "fair"? You've got 17 adjective definitions to choose from:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fair

YOU were the one that defined a set of randomness and then made claims as to what it refuted, not me. I have merely shown a similar example and shown why this logic is wrong.

Wrong on both counts, as far as I can tell.

I should also point out that this is not the description of free will which I have admitted in this thread.

A deterministic universe has a finite sequence, meaning that it comes to an end at some point. All this hoopla ultimately means is that free will becomes just another variable on the other side.

That's compatibilism in a rough nutshell. It doesn't take a fancy, technical hybridization of philosophical ideals to have it make sense.

I pick definition 1 for fair, specifically 'free from injustice'.

I pick the definition for stochastic process listed on the wikipedia page for stochastic process, beginning where it says 'Definition'.

I really don't understand how "free will" could be a stochastic process. If our decisions are a consequence of a stochastic process, wouldn't that imply some sort of loss of control?

What does it mean for a universe to 'have a finite sequence'.
Why does a deterministic universe have to 'come to an end at some point'?
Another variable on the other side of what?

I can't argue with anyone who is going to claim they didn't write that they wrote.

Did you write this or did someone hack your computer:

then answer this:

Do you think a random system means causation can not occur in the system?

Didnt read OP, didnt read thread, only read title, and I'm gonna go with "the two arent separate categories, really just arbitrary distinctions, with no line in between."

How'd I do?

Sorry, I did not intend to misquote you, I had misremembered. You agreed to use 'free will' only as 'something described by a probability distribution'.

A+ as usual.

In what sense is there a notion of justice/injustice in the probability space?

You're starting down a path where the words you are using have no meaning under the definition you've been attributing to them.