Define God

Cryacuz, you say that "There are boundaries to our individual freedom,"
At one level of thought that's so, but from my perspective there is neither free will nor determinism.
First, I do not believe that "causality" describes the world; it is merely an explanatory (not a descriptive) scheme. Secondly, there is no agency, no egoself, to be free. There is only the cosmos/God/Brahma/Whatever/X, and its spontaneity/freedom is seen in everything that happens, including my actions and experiences. I say "my" not because there is a "me" who is the subject of actions and experiences (there are only those actions and experiences) but because that is the way our language is structured. Grammar is the metaphysics of the masses.

I understand what you mean JL, and I think the point is an important reminder of how easy it is to let our sucjective experiences get tangled into our 'objectivity'. I agree that whatever we say about the nature of LE or Brahma, is true not because of the correspondence to the actual thing, but because of it's correspondence to the abstract frame we're trying to set up. It like QM in a way. Not that I believe the result will be true. Just useful.

You also say that there is no agency or egoself to be free. Nor to be determined I'd guess. There is no force that restrains and determines. I like the example of a tree to explain it.

The tree just wants to grow, and so all it's potency goes into that. Gravity just wants to gather mass to it. The actual tree is a result of it's freedom to grow and gravity's freedom to exert itself. Again there is deception, because there is not egoself in the tree nor in gravity. Still there is this relation of forces. But if we go deeper into it we realize that the tree could not have existed at all if not for gravity and other forces 'readying it's coming'. So the freedom of 'tree' was given by gravity. In a way, Brahma is but this relation of forces, and in a way our language, our thoughts and actions are but extensions and variations of those forces. It is surely a grand concept. It is Krshna

I get the impression that you do not like the idea of not being free, JL. If so I share your mindset.

Start from the premise that thoughts are real and with enough time and energy they can pierce steel walls .... or without a spoken word, teach a newborn to smile.

Profound

Cyracuz, you say that you " get the impression that do not like the idea of not being free." Actually, I do not believe in metaphysical freedom or determinism because, as I said, I do not believe there is a "me" to be free or constrained.
At the same time--on another level--I'd hate to be imprisoned.

By the way, your comments on the forces in nature, for growth and the like, are expressed in terms of anthropomorphic "urges, "desires", etc. Nietzsche felt that while there is no agency in nature, even human nature, we must think about nature AS IF there were. His concept of Will to Power is consistent with much of what you posit.

Strange to feel satisfaction over hearing that one's thoughts are similar to a madman's. But I have oftern thought about how to get around that 'agency' which automatically appears as soon as an attribute is assigned any force.

I appreciate (your) thoughts on the concepts of free will and determinism. Maybe the correct answer to this riddle is: "Forget about it."

Nietzsche's thoughts were written before his madness. Moreover, there are those who believe that his insanity was not what it appeared to be. He was still Nietzsche but without the normal constraints of so-called normalcy. Some even suggest that he faked it. But that would be a discussion I'm not prepared to hold.

Oh yes, I forgot about the free will vs. determinism long ago. I consider it the most sophmoric of issues.

Yes, it seems this issue never completely resolves. It just ends up going in a circle. In a way that is expected, because there is no finality to the LE, or Brahma.

But are there any other aspects of this that would perhaps make more fruitful counterparts in discussing the relations of the imagined fractions of LE?

The core of the free will/determinism puzzle is the observation that everything that is moved in turn moves. Are there any ways, do you think, to better express this activity that the one we're currently using?

Well, yes.

Cyracuz, it IS a useful issue for discussing the nature of causality, the egoself, etc. but I do not see it as a valid either-or issue.
It is not a riddle to be solved or a contradiction to be resolved. When it is seen for the false puzzle that it is, it dissolves

Yes. I have had similar thoughts about time. Past, present, future are all considerations, and when they come together in the scheme they are proposing the whole notion dissolves.


Neo

Yes? Any suggestions?

We could not even begin to understand our existence were it not for the operation of cause and effect. But to say that the universe is totally deterministic presents us with a conundrum: What about free will? Does it really exist?

My answer revolves around the existence of God. So, now let me construct the entire house of cards for you to blow down:

Premise: There exists an all powerful God whose name means 'he who causes to become'.
Premise: At some time in the past, he willed himself to become a creator.
Premise: The first of his creations was a mirror image also having free will.
Premise: This first creation was given the power to continue creating.

From this I deduce that all things, including more intelligent creatures have been created. And, as a corollary, the intelligent creatures so created have also a measure of free will within their own dominions. As humans we have free will within the constraints of the physical laws of earth.

I realize that simply proclaiming that God willed himself to become a creator raises many questions, not the least of which is 'what did he do in the time before that?' However, we can't afford to stumble over those issues so long as we are unable to articulate the exact nature of space (Just how many dimensions are there, and how do they interrelate?) and time (Is it truly linear?)

The only way we can prove or disprove is not by direct attack on the premises, but by examining the consequences of the argument. I suggest this, though difficult, is possible even for those of us having less than complete intelligence skills.

To me it seems that your premises are assumptions.

But I can agree with you here:



But it is as JL says, a subjective truth, bearing it's merit soley on your shoulders. Still, that line of reasoning is helpful in understanding the ups and downs of life, and to cope with them.

Quite right. The only way I can see for the premises to be shown to have merit is to examine the veracity of the conclusions. While this may be time consuming, I do not think it impossible for even the unsophisticated.

house of cards? I wanna play!

neo,

Why do you make these assumptions and not others?

What others?

Any others.

Would you ever consider adjusting your present assumptions?

You mean like the universe rests on the back of an elephant standing on a giant turtle?

Or should I just begin to explain how my original propositions may be verified?

Begin away.

I think there are more rewarding approaches than this one. Your four assumptions are keystones that help you make sense of the abstract realm of spiritual inquiry. If any of the premises are wrong, that may have great implications for everything that is built on them.

That is why I think my approach is better. I do not assume that there exist an all powerful anything. Instead, I know that something exists, and I envision this something, -of which I am a part, as a singularity.

Then I proceed to name it God for reasons I'm not entirely sure about.

Yet, when holding this entity in the mind's eye while contemplating the things that are said about God (omnipotence, causality, freewill/determinism), I realize that this living singularity 'trancends and deflates all of them' (wording borrowed from fresco). I realize that these things are true about the singularity from my viewpoint within it, but cannot really be assigned to it as attributes.

This is true, because it is a closed argument with every concept clearly defined. A case of cold reason, with no open or incomplete definitions.

The problem with a prime mover, as I see it, is that it is a more complex concept than 'everything' and so is it is much harder to establish it's boundaries in a logically acceptable way.

If a premise is to be valid, it cannot have hazy boundaries, because then we do not know what it it.