I was just trying to say that if there is no free will, then our thoughts are purely causal, such that the story of our lives was written (locked; set in stone) at the beginning, going all the way back to the moment the Universe sprang into existence...regardless of whether God did that or not. Cause begets cause begets cause...decision! God is irrelevant to our discussion, I think. The existence of God is orthogonal to the existence of free will. That is, you can believe in a god but not free will, you can believe in a god and free will, you can disbelieve in gods and believe in free will, and you can disbelieve in both gods and freewill. I say this so that you know I'm not trying to argue from a position of theological belief. My arguments here are purely philosophical, and non-theological.
I see two main paradigms:
1) Our brains are causal, so (or because) we have no free will. We may perceive that we make decisions, but in reality our brain just processes inputs and produces outputs that we call decisions, but these decisions are really just foregone conclusions of a complex biological processor.
If you had a computer complex enough, and you could model the same inputs, then you could not just predict the "decisions" of a sentient being 100% of the time, you could actually duplicate the decisions of sentient beings. You would have 100% certainty of what they would do, because there is no unaccounted for variable called "free will."
2) Our brains are not causal, in that we have free will. That is, humans have something (some call it a soul, but we can call it a freedom agent or something else that "emerges" from complexity in the form of consciousness) that allows them to escape the causality that we see everywhere in the universe. We have true, genuine choices.
Computers can estimate the likelihood of what we will do to great accuracy, but that is still just a good prediction of a truly free decision, not a duplication of a decision.
--
Randomness: That also seems to me to be an orthongonal variable. That is, I think you could have option 1 above with and without randomness, and option 2 with or without randomness.
Randomness may be an attempt to explain how people come to different conclusions on the same data, but more likely people come to different conclusions because their processors (their brains) are very different, so the inputs go through a different processing function. (And, their inputs will be different, because their input detectors (eyes, ears, nose, etc.) collect data differently...and the data is stored differently...but mostly it is processed by many different unique brains in the case of humans, so you will get different results. But, all of that could be the case with or without free will, so the concept of randomness seems to me to be only tangentially related to free will at best. Randomness can explain differences in decisions, but not whether those decisions were the result of free will or not. Randomness is a non-will based explanation. Things cannot be the result of will (cannot be purposeful) if they are due to randomness alone, and the presence of randomness does not undo free will.