And thusly, you have advocated compatibilism. In what you describe, there is no ability to do otherwise. The agent cannot be otherwise that what he is (basic law of identity), so then it naturally follows that the choice cannot be otherwise, since you advocate agent causation (agent causes the will to be thus and not otherwise). You have shot down your own ability to do otherwise by defending yourself with a compatibilistic freedom.
Furthermore, I simply pointed out your own view, which you have now reversed, you have dodged or ignored your earlier assertion of transcendent/ultimate nature.
Your position has this internal war between agent causation, ability to do otherwise, and transcendent. Your inability to follow my critique does not make it a straw man. You have only backed up the charge of arbitrariness to the agent. Now, if you never advocated the ability to do otherwise, then your position has been a compatibilistic view of human freedom and decision making.
