Everybody think they have free will. That one decided that they want to stay in the room, nothing forced them to stay. However, our minds are incapable of thinking otherwise. That perhaps free will is an illusion. For example, a nun discovers a hand-grenade in an orphanage. She picks up the hand grenade in order to dispose of it. However, an uncaused (no cause, none whatsoever) event occurs. Due to her horror, her hand pulls out the pin and throws the grenade into the orphanage causing destruction. The action of pulling the pin and throwing the grenade was not caused by any decision on the nun’s part; nor did it have an external physical cause. Her hand simply moved from absolutely no cause whatsoever, which is an action of free will. One could not blame the nun for she is the victim. The alarming thing for libertarians is that the nun seems to be not free because her action was uncaused. Freedom requires it to have a causation. Which threatens the libertarian idea that “the key to the problem of freedom is indeterminism of human action”. It is important to distinguish the difference between free undetermined action and randomness.According to the theory of agent causation, one can act freely when their action is not caused in the ordinary, mechanistic way, but their action is caused by them. If one freely decides to eat Fruit Loops one morning rather than their usual Frosted Flakes, it would be impossible to predict beforehand which cereal they would choose. Nevertheless, one’s choice was not random, for one themselves caused it. It is unclear whether agent causation really solves the problem of randomness. However, do one still have free will? There are two important factors in decision-making: what one desire and what one believe is the best means to achieve that desire. Suppose that, a Democratic Party vote wins. If one selected the Democratic vote, their selection was subject to no laws; it was unpredictable. This was not caused by one’s beliefs and desires. Yet, there is a problem, since the selection was not causally based on one’s beliefs and desires, it seems entirely detached from them. The vote did not arise from who they are. It just appeared in the world. Given this, it would be odd to praise or blame one for it. Suggesting that it was not free. Although a decision-maker faced with the same set of alternatives again may make different selections the second time, that would be because their state of mind, has changed. “You cannot step into the same river twice”, Heraclitus. Furthermore, this choice is the result of previous causes. However, an action could be free of choice depending on the person’s personal desires and beliefs which may alter an event completely.