In the second article (OP), the author states: “contra-causal free will: that in a situation as it actually occurred, you could have done otherwise but chose not to. The choice was up to you in a very strong, metaphysical sense: it wasn’t completely determined by causal chains traceable back in time, but neither was it random, To have free will in this sense is to be an uncaused causer…
Choosing requires a motive or reason to behave one way as opposed to another. An uncaused causer by definition isn’t at the influence of any motive or desire, so would have no reason to choose.”
I think the author doesn’t fully understand an uncaused causer. It might be different when it comes to God.
If God gave us an uncaused soul with free will, wouldn’t we desire the good? Like this Thomas Merton quote: “Freedom isn’t necessarily the privilege of having the choice between good and evil, but the ability to chose only good.”
Meaning we choose evil, thinking it would be good for us, but we suffer the consequences of the wrong choice. Would this make sense?