Jesus and free will

Jesus and free will Aug 6, 2017 5:26:55 GMT

Quote

Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2017 5:26:55 GMT

Jul 6, 2017 20:12:24 GMT cupcakes said:

^tpfkar

@miccee said:

Such a massive non sequitur of nothing, meaning nothing. But you keep working with random and magic all you like.

Also, be an amigo and maybe share some of those psychotropics.

I have nothing to share other than real, logical, hard-nosed, no-nonsense secularism. Anathema to your mystical godless version of Christianity. If you piece together a broken teapot, you don't end up with anything more than the pieces you've glued together (plus whatever glue or material you have used to join the pieces together). And when a decision is made, it is nothing more than a product of the constituent parts which went in to the decision; none of which the decision maker chose or had control over.

Means nothing of the sort, regardless of your slanted definitions and devotion to incoherencies.

Incoherency is claiming that our decisions have causes, but yet are fundamentally 'free' in some way.

Some ponder over implications, while others readily assert inanities for morbid motive, buttressed by ludicrous exaggeration, casual misrepresentation and positively silly black-is-white redefinition. All for their love of religiosity, albeit a direct worship of death for all for the paradise of Nihility rather than Yahweh. We all have the shared experiences of agency and making choices, and making things go differently according to our wants and actions. Your simply frightfully poor comparison of that with "God" just again demonstrates the absurdities that some go for cause. God is in fact something not seen nor directly experienced, much like the "just an illusion assertion", to try to explain what is seen as something else - be it the sun rising/setting, life, death complexities, making choices, etc.

Free will is an interpretation of conscious experience. God's love is an interpretation of the sense of wellbeing that one might gain from engaging in ritualistic activity.

"Free will" is what we live and experience every minute of every day of our lives. "It's an illusion" the neutered handwave that could be used on anything, simply "mysterious ways" again.

"Free will" is an interpretation of those experiences, and one that is ostensibly a product of limited perspective, combined with the desire to feel in control of our own destiny. And I've explained that the real explanation is just the same explanation that can be used to account for all the other macroscopic physical phenomena that are seen to occur. It's not "mysterious ways" at all. It's putting human decision making into the same category as other physical phenomena; rather than trying to create a nebulously defined special category for it.

Why would I want to do that? In any case it would have nothing to do with the free lying you engage in and did again engage in, in the paragraph it answered.

The purpose of doing it (for anyone intellectually honest) would be to verify, for your own edification, whether there are credible philosophers who espouses the same definition of free will that you have set out. If there aren't any, and you are going out on a limb, this might alert you to an error in your reasoning and enable you to change course in that case. But it's apparent that you're more eager just to cling on to "free will" at any cost, even if means that you don't really understand what you mean by that.