banjo.<<...I examined the question..(of free will)..in some detail a few years ago..
in the context..of a personal study..I carried out on the philosophy of Justice,<<..

publish..or perish?

there is no..free-will..injustice..[its all precedent..that was judge..by high court thus..so i often heard..i refuse to hear any-more..thats what..is said..in court..just too keep rebuttal facts out of the record]..yet i worked..them..back..in later

only to..not receive a transcript
at appeal..to point it out..by their own decites
[free-choice to deliberately lie to the justice system...?]
.no..thats why free-will..isnt anything to do..with justice..[thus un-just,,by act]

its the lie..true justice..necessarily..*need a real-injury..[upon..living person]..[criminal law

the corperate person..[under civil/contractualobligation
by virtue..of not living..cant be further injured..as iyt lives alone inthe realm of word..egsists only on..paper

[there can be no frewill..for machine..nor paper

civil..contract violation..can be asseesed
but the dead..cant make a just contract..with..the living[noequalmeetinmg of mindf

plus noinformmed copncent[paper dont grasdpthe cpncept
of its ownvioliytion..between the dead [corpse-orate]..[for contractual violation..of contracted terms]..withthe l;iving whocan suffer/freewill

any-other..legal lie [in-justice[,,thus..is by lie..not freewill

the only freewill..in/the justice
system..part..called jury of peers]

juries have the DUTY..[see jury nullification]
the duty..to..not only judge guilt..but the law

[thus..the judge surrenders his majisterial
powers to the only true judge..[the people][peers]

but these clean-skins are far from peers
they can be especially selected/sorted/classified/investigated ..cause if..they can be led..the intended[not just[..result is created

[re-call..the sir joe trial..jury foreman..
was president of young nationals..

there..is..no freewill..in justice..there..is just us

your free-will..ignored my last question
whats the atheist guy saying?

where is your justice thesis
i..would love tearing that deceit..to bits

lol
freewill..in..justice?..
lol.no..mate just us..plus in-justice..upon lie upon lie

reading..between..the line
im seeing your leaving?

we still got..plenty of room
to..expand upon..many..interesting meams..

that deceived many..TOO.MANY*.

from..the atheist link
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=15624

topic..<<..In my most recent series..of posts..(on the topic of natural evil),..I made some allusions..to something called the problem..of heaven.

I did so..in order to support..certain criticisms
of theistic responses..to the problem of evil.

<<.Since these allusions..were,..no doubt,..maddeningly vague,
I decided..it might behoove me..to do a whole series..on the problem of heaven.

That is what..you are now reading.>>

then re-direction

..<<..i.e...no amount of evil..is compatible with/the..existence of God;..other arguments..propose that/the inconsistency..is evidential, i.e...a small volume..of evil is compatible..but not..a large volume..>>

that is..convoluted thinking
thats as absurd as..saying only kids can crawl
those crawling..a lot..means no god..or the slightest proof of crawling..is compatible..both concepts are without logic..

we got freewill..TO..chose..to DO EVIL..anywhere
[but..do it ..in heaven'..you..get kicked out..fair is fair
[play nice or leave..too easy..do as those do inheaven..your welcome

but heck..even angels can fall
its not complicated..no sin,,in..heaven[full stop]

its not rocket science

<<..(or,rather,
a large volume..reduces the probability..of God’s existence)..>>

so..there is evil..
so there is no good

its insane..so lets go next one

<<..,there are two..main categories of evil>>
i posted the quote..i can accept..the concept..
but leave that..for others to judge..[but see no evil..means heaven

hell..holds many sins..many-fold more beyond the t deadly ones neatly discarded....nothing..voides the base..7..plus many-fold extra

two grades..of qualification..is dualistic..
but of use to expand a discussion/concept....so let that slide too

<<..This order of presentation..makes sense
because heaven..only really poses..a problem..in light of certain standard..theistic strategies..for dealing with evil..>>

any examples?

<<..Oppy’s creation)
makes use of..the unusual terminology..“A-universes”.
This is simply his name..for universes that..are non-arbitrarily better..than all other universes..containing free agents.>>

ohhh...err..ok
saint..ooppy?

continue

..<<..He says..that A-universes..could contain free agents,
but they would be..free agents who always..chose to do the good.>>

wtf?

..<<..And just to..to clarify,..by “free agent”..here
is meant..an agent..with libertarian free will.>>

go-on?..

<<..The argument..just given..contains..the typical/non-theistic rationale..for the..logical problem of evil:>>

yeah but we talking about heaven

right?

heaven..get it?

<<./.The fact that..ours is not..such a..<<THEORETICAL}..universe
is proof..that it..was not created..by a perfect being.>>

im..missing something
real proof?

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=15624

there is..THE..freewill defense..
[this..wasnt..as easy..to..find/but..reads clear
http://www2.gsu.edu/~phltso/freewillD.html

then..there..*appears to/be..this..other
first..search-result

Alvin/Plantinga's..free-will..defense
From Wikipedia..the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga%27s_free_will_defense

photo/The head..of a smiling,
bespectacled..and bearded man..in his seventies.
Alvin Plantinga..in 2004

Alvin Plantinga's...version*?..[otthers?]
of/the free-will/defense[1]..is an attempt..
to refute..the logical problem..of evil,..the argument...

that to..posit..the existence..of an omnipotent..omniscient,omni-benevolent God..*in an..evil world constitutes..a logical..contradiction.[2]>>

said the..school-teacher..on/the..first day of..school
one bad student..means no..good-teacher/school..[its absurd]

Plantinga's argument..is that..
"It is possible..that God,..even being omnipotent,
could not...create a world..with free creatures..who never choose evil.>>

bull-dust/pure..good is imposable[good =ending evil[or what means good?

at best..we/all..got..good/intention.
/.but..poor delivery..even jesus..wasnt perfect

kids..stuff-up..every day/will innocently..murder a kitten..by loving..it to..death..or sleeping..on..it..etc

sure..they..didnt..CHOSE evil
yet murder..but death=natural
death..happens..EVERYTHING DIES..eventually

if death..is evil..why do fools..CHOSE..to die?
[forget..model/bling..get real..

true evil..#could forbid..evil*..or forbid good
[but..evil...is-as..evil..does..its..vile
but..true good..cant forbid evil..nor the..doing..of good

<<./.Furthermore,..it/is..possible[lol]..that God,
even...being..omni-benevolent,..would/desire..to/create..a world/which contains evil..if moral/goodness..requires..free-moral/creatures."[3]

yes..god..created/creatures..some exceedingly vile
yet god loves..them all..he dont see the vile child..he sees the loving/grown-up..parent..

capable..of loving..his child./.his--creation
like god loves..*all..his children/ALL..his creations

<<..While/Plantinga's..free-will/deaf-fence
has..received..*fairly widespread acceptance[lol]..among philosophers,..*many..still contend..that it fails..to adequately resolve..the problem..of evil.[6][7][8][9][10][11][lol]

<<..Additionally,..the defense..only addresses/moral_evil,
not..natural0evil,..and many note..that the defense..requires a libertarian, ..incompatibilist view..of free-will..in order to be effective.[12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

<<./.Free-will..is the..*ability..*of agents..to make choices.;.unconstrained..by certain-factors.>>

<<..In science,..neuroscientific/findings..regarding free-will
*..may..suggest different-ways..of predicting..human-behavior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

im/noting..many of/the..buzz-words..then this

<<..In..many senses..the field/remains..highly controversial and there..is/no,,consensus/among researchers..about/the significance..of findings,..or..their meaning,..or..what conclusions..may*be..drawn.>>

and/again..with..the timing/thing

<<..One..significant-finding..of modern studies..is that..a person's brain..seems to commit to..certain decisions..before the person..becomes aware..of having made them.>>

refuted

same/spin
but..a smaller/number?

<<..in 2008..were/able..to predict..with..*60%..[lol]..accuracy/whether subjects..would press...a button/with..their left..or right hand..up to 10 seconds..before the/subject..became aware of..having made..that choice.>>

FIRE_DOOR..deference

<<..to/be..clear,
no..single study..would disprove..all forms/of free-will.
This is..because..the term "free-will" ..can encapsulate..different hypotheses>>

plus divergent theorems

<<...each/of..which..must be..considered..in light/of..existing empirical-evidence.>>

ahhh-men

<<.....It/is..clearly wrong..to think of..[feeling of willling something]..as a prior intention,>>

chuckle/chuckle

insanity

<<..The/conclusions..drawn from..measurements
that..have been made..are debatable too>>

noo..gasp..grasp?

<<..,as/they..don't necessarily..tell,..for example,
what..a sudden dip..in the readings..is representing.>>

spin?
pre-judgment?

<<..Researcher/Itzhak Fried..says..that available studies
do..at/least..suggest consciousness..comes..in a later/stag.. of decision..making..than previously expected?>>

if your..needing limited-opinion

<<..challenging/any..versions of.."free-will"..where intention/occurs at..the/beginning..of the..human-decision..process..>>

<<..Instead,..the..conscious-self..is somehow..alerted..to a given behavior..that the..rest of/the brain..*and..body..are..*already planning..*and performing...

<<..These findings..do-not..forbid..conscious/experience from..playing..some..moderating-role>>..[your choice*

Dear All,

The classics contain wisdom literature some of which seems valid even though centuries separate us from the author. When we are young we may think of the great things we want to do in life. When we are old most of us will have not done the things we hoped we would do. Montaigne, a Catholic, had something to say on that subject. Whether or not the following had anything to with his faith I don’t know, but the words are comforting.

“We are great fools. “He has spent his life in idleness,” we say; “I have done nothing today.” What, have you not lived? That is not only the fundamental, but the most illustrious of your occupations. “If I had been placed in a position to manage great affairs, I would have shown what I could do.” Have you been able to think out and manage your own life? You have done the greatest task of all. To show and exploit her resources Nature has no need of fortune; she shows herself equally on all levels and behind a curtain as well as without one. To compose our character is our duty, not to compose books, and to win, not battles and provinces but order and tranquillity in our conduct. Our great and glorious masterpiece is to live appropriately. All other things, ruling, hoarding, building, are only little appendages and props, at most.”

I didn’t exist before I was born. I won’t exist after I die. Meanwhile I am alive, and life is good even with hay fever.

Dear Banjo,

>>science and belief in God, are … mutually exclusive, one rational, the other irrational<<
>>relatively small population of scientists who somehow manage to assume their philosophical schizophrenia<<

Silly me, I did not realise you held these views when I tried to explain what I meant by the article. Well, I certainly would not see any point in conducting discussions with a person whose worldview I consider “irrational” or “bicephalous” or who suffers from “philosophical schizophrenia”. I THINK NEITHER SHOULD YOU (although you apparently don’t mind benefitting from the achievements of science and technology, unthinkable without the contribution of “irrational” and “schizophrenic” mathematicians and scientists). FULL STOP.

Dear david f,

Thanks for this piece of wisdom My I offer another one, also appreciated mostly after one has reached a sufficiently ripe age. Perhaps as a conclusion to our exchange of opinions here:

“If you persist in trying
To attain what is never attained
…
If you persist in making effort
To obtain what effort cannot get;
If you persist in reasoning
About what cannot be understood,
You will be destroyed
By the very thing you seek.

To know when to stop,
To know when you can get no further
By your own action,
This is the right beginning.

(Chuang Tzu, translation Thomas Merton)

.

Dear George,

.

I’m afraid there’s something of a Don Quijote de la Mancha in me. However, I’ll accept to follow Chuang Tzu’s advice this time – not from fear of being “destroyed by the very thing (I) seek”, but just because it’s you.

Despite your evident displeasure, I take comfort in the thought that you are an exceptionally intelligent person.

auf Wiedersehen,

.