IMO. For six years I have believed the big bang theory should have been called the big bang hypothesis, and it is wrong.

You can say everything is based on physics. Every move is just a reaction. It is all just dominoes falling. Predetermined from the start. But, I wouldn't agree.

If intelligence didn't exist, it would be the case, everything is predetermined. But, intelligence does exist. You will your mind, and your mind moves your body.

You can choose to open your umbrella as you walk in the rain, or you can choose not to. Each minor movement you do has countless reactions. Every different choice has a multitude of different reactions. Each an effect on the environment. The environment is the cosmos.

The cosmos was 100 percent predictible until intelligent life evolved. Then all bets were off. This includes how and when you will die.

Birth and death is determined and in between these everything is probablistic.

I have never listened to “cosmic skeptic”....am I exercising my free will by deciding not to? As I can’t actually comment or make a judgement based on his arguments unless I do, I will just say that I have been unconvinced by others who have asserted that we have no free will, believing that although our choices may be constrained by the Universe and the circumstances which we find ourselves unable to control, we still have control over the everyday actions we make. Like @Heraclitus I believe that to think that we were mere puppets to Universal forces would be uncomfortably close to believing in a god whose hand controlled us. It is also a very convenient argument for us to say our bad choices in life were not a consequence of our own actions, but were already predetermined.

It seems to me the genetic makeup we inherit might predetermine the way we react or respond to certain situations or stimuli. Just shooting in the dark.

Well, in spite of my lack of free will and inability to choose to watch the video, Fate intervened and forced me to watch it anyway.
I find his Hard Deterministic argument weak for two reasons:

1. He only talks in terms of absolutes. He constantly uses the phrase "complete control" as if it is impossible to have partial control, even a small amount of control. Really? This false assumption eliminates any other option and is crucial to his argument of polarities.
2. He claims there is no way to control what you want. However, people do have some control over what they want over time. For example, people who engage in self-hypnosis can change, at least to some extent, how much they want to smoke. Many people can attest to this. Over time, you can change your diet and eventually, at least to an extent, control what you want to eat. Many people can attest to this. This false dichotomy assumption is also crucial to his argument.
   I find Soft Determinism a more logical and sensible argument. We have free will but it is far more limited than what we would like to admit to ourselves. Our subconscious controls most of what we think and do. Then again, maybe I only believe this because the Universe has so determined that I believe it. And maybe the Cosmic Skeptic only believes in Hard Determinism because the Universe has so determined that he believes in it. Funny, but have you ever considered that if the Universe forces us to choose everything that we believe, think and and do, that is a little like God forcing us to think everything we think, believe everything we believe, and do everything we do?

Well, since I don't have any free will I guess I can't choose to listen to it.

I will have to check it out.