Free will, or universal determinism

The core conflict arises from the question of whether our choices are genuinely our own by free will or are the inevitable outcomes of a prior, deterministic cause, maybe elven as far reaching as the “big bang.” Well, first of all, there is no balloon without a needle somewhere, so, there’s your b.b. origin. Beyond that, when you're thinking the determinism side, what makes you think what is suggested to your head, and not originating in it is credible, because, there is certainly a lot of chaos out ther? Whereas, when you're of the belief that you're not a lunatic, at least you ought to know by now your thinking is relatively sound.

I believe in conscience. I think we tell ourselves all sorts of things in a bid to assuage it, and that all our actions are predetermined is one of those things just as much as that some dude died for our sins already. I don't know where conscience comes from. I mean the sort that seems to extend to the end of the universe where a god might be listening to have his feelings hurt. Something a little schizo in it I guess, but I believe in it. That's where Christianity gets its hooks in. Some people seek their salve in other ideas, but that is plainly what they're doing too. I'm a bit of a solipsist myself tbh. Conscience was there before I knew anything else. It's got deep roots. Done plenty wicked too, probably I need a stronger draft. 

Mind is the beginning of all things, not the big bang. The latter is just a less frightening idea.

Bit cheesy, but to love is salvation. 

Dunno if anyone reading is following all that. But I think I just spoke my ultimate truth. 

They're the 2 AM alone in the dark sort of thoughts where the world seems to bend. I'm back in my family home tonight. I put my 15 year old dog down today. 

What if he made it so we can resist/reject him?

There is a lot to unpack when we think about free will and determinism. There is no definite answer that everyone can agree on. But that is why we continue to observe behavior, conduct experiments, and study how humans behave and make choices.

Then he is not  benevolent.

So a benevolent god would control us all as slaves? Maybe you are Islamic in denial.

Well, the balloon is always the balloon without a needle.

And an infinite amount of Universes still require an intellectually satisfying needle.

As would an infinite magical floaty about bloke.

So always cause and effect.

Even free will is a cause and effect event.

Basically, you cannot do something before you do it.

I dont have free will.

Re: your #2, I think conscience is that impression deep in us that chides us when, as adults, and parents, we yell at our kids when they do something we believe ought not be done, but then wonder what's up with our kids when they yell at us for doing the same thing. They learn from us and mimic us, and they are sponges when it comes to learning acceptable and unacceptable behavior. they see it in us and wonder why we haven't learned the lesson we try to teach them. Yelling is not a good teaching behavior. Conscience is the innate skill of recognizing the distinction of basic good and evil, the knowledge of which is essential for getting it right.

Re: your #2, I think the "Big Bang" is just a balloon and the inevitable needle, and not the alleged beginning of the universe at all. But, you may be correct that it is less frightening than the alternative that a sentient God is the creator with a purpose in mind for that universe: for us. That is where I put my trust in what is true.

#3: pets are family, and that's all that really need be said about the depth of that relationship. My condolences. I've been there.

I have to stop right there. I do not understand blaming God for our suffering. 99.9% of our suffering is our doing, not his. But then, one must believe in free will and not a deterministic universe that God, or a sentient universe, run everything, cause everything, and appear malevolent about it. I do not buy that philosophy for a second. While many believe, if they even believe in God, that he is the cause of everything, I believe his creation was his cause, but he gave us agency to act for ourselves, and that, therefore, he may not be the cause of anything thereafter. We become cause by our free will to do good or evil, and that our misfortunes belong, in the end, toourselves, or others around us, trying to impose their will on us, and we on them.

Is it? I suppose one might say a balloon is a balloon whether filled with air or flat and flacid. But I think things are defined, first, by purpose, and flat is not the designed purpose of a balloon. Same goes for us. We were not designed, in my book, to be indifferent and cruel to one another, but to follow the vice of Christ to love even our enemies. Hard bargain, but doable.

Not if you don't claim it, that's true.

Cant claim what doesnt exist.

Well, design is as design does.

And I do tend to run with the idea of a purposeful universe.

So it could be argued that an intelligent dextrous being will always evolve and prevail.

Though evolution necessitates competition and survival, so indifference and cruelty is perhaps hard wired into the process.

Designer MANGOD however, is either an obvious Earthman hypothesis, or a super-intelligent intergalactic species that evolved of the same process.

One would imagine that the latter, came, saw, seeded and departed for elsewhere, not having the time to wait around for 4 billion years to see what transpired.

I claim that the order of the planets of the Sun is listed incorrectly.

I claim there is no history; there is only now.

I claim I do not exist.

What do you make of your #16?

Your #17, line 4 is not a know fact, and I suspect indifference and cruelty are not the only necessary conclusions of evolutionary competition. Direct involvement and joy of service may be natural consequences, and thy could, as a result, produce a benevolent god that came, saw, seeded, and remained in contact to observe results because it is his nature to not just observe, but interact, encourage, and love over 4 billion years.

I claim that I dont have free will.

That violates your own declaration that one cannot claim that which does not exist, which is also your claim.

#19.

Not a lot of known fact there either.

And for sure, evolution of the species and natural selection theory, never sits easy with deists.

Whereas I tend to run with a general idea of perpetual creation and material evolution, which in itself is a GOD principle, wherein MANGOD or his equivalent is a superficial hypothesis thought up billions of years after the creation/reinitiation event. Though that said, I guess that all creation and existence ideas are reasonably analogical.

Running with ideas is what we do in the absence of knowledge.

And bibles and religions, are nothing more that running with an ideas in the absence of knowledge.

i entirely agree with your commentary of "perpetual creation" and evolution along side it. I am hearing allusion to the Scopes trial in TN in 1925 that found in favor of silencing education of evolution, and maintaining the legality of the Butler Act. I've always been intrigued by a later trial in the TN Supreme Court that overturned the Scopes trial, nd yet held that the Butler Act renin in effect until 1967, but remains a matter of debate today. 

However, I entirely disagree with the closing argument in your post. That conclusion is, frankly, supportive of only a shallow read of scripture. It is far deeper that you allege, thigh I am aware that many people do poor research into it, and arrive at the same conclusion. That is why I investigate Greek [in which I have formal eduction] ad Hebrew [which I am learning on my own], biblical texts to gain greater understanding. I recognize that most people have neither the time nor inclination to do so, but, as a result, conclude the scriptures lack knowledge. Sorry to make a personal accusation, for I value your commentary valuable and mostly on point, but not in this specific regard. plus, I there to the idea of continued revelation from God in our day, thus, having addiotnal scripture not had by the average Christian. Sorry, but I think it arrogance that many think God stopped talking to us with Biblical scripture.

I've always found Molinism to be the most interesting and plausible attempt to resolve the supposed free will/destiny contradiction. It's essentially a framing of the issue where every possible choice that you could take, and the natural consequences of those courses of action, are seen by God as part of His omniscience, compounding upon one another over and over in a kind of incomprehensible counterfactual fractal that encompasses all of creation. God intervenes in butterfly effect ways to nudge the world towards these events by pushing people towards or away from certain paths. God can also see areas where human actions play off each other and funnel into certain 'bottleneck' events, allowing for prediction and prophecies. The theologians who eventually came up with the idea called it 'God's middle knowledge' - a knowledge not only of what is and was but also everything that might be.

It also fits in with the Catholic theological belief that the devil is the prince of this world. The natural human tendency towards despotism, cruelty, and sin pervades all societies. This is why Christ compares the actions of divine grace to leaven - it's a living thing which works within the inert, lifeless dough, does its work in secret and silence, and is only evident in the result. He compared it to a small seed growing into a tree. Divine intervention will be a subtle thing which effects large changes through inscrutable causality. It's the most poetic and interesting framing of the issue that I've come across.