You don’t want to call it free-will, but you describe it as such.
You are stuck in conventional definitions of words…like ‘freedom’ and ‘willing’.
Freedom is a measure of the will’s power, determining what it perceives - an option - and what it can choose from what it perceives - its power to overcome resistance.
Freedom is not absolute.
The ‘pretense’ is the necessary , illusive existential condition, for, those, to whom action comes first before a conscious construction of conscious awareness .
The One God or many is a no starter , for many gods are at the ontologically literal representation of supposing a prior differentiated symbolic equiminity between gods( as signified material effects of natural phenomenon)- in fact in early spirituality, there are no illusive spirits behind their designation, they are what they signify by observation of their action. The illusions to be ripped apart are yet to come,
The time is coming ( has come) when the progressive illusions are turned into delusions, worked out by dreams and other ‘sun-conscious’ acts of the psyche, and yours truly is not about to succumb to that , not merely by being under the spell of the Freud-Young falling out, of which etymology the basis of reasonable argument exceeded to find common ground.
But will stop less the though that Kant’s critiques themselves are products of an overwrought imagination bordering on delusion.
That is true, but being stuck does not pose a limit, where both freedom of will and a necessary curtailment of it can be approached functionally, via the process of situational starting point. If the argument starts with a call to action, without the convenience of considering the outcome, and it is an absolute condition for existential survival, then yes, that will not be a best chosen course as above a precinsidered one.
But a preconsidered choice one where a transcendent objective effect can be induced, then the freedom to choose between the two is sustained through an apparent sufficient time to act.
So that ground underlies and supports the doubly held adherence between those two to become bounded situations, again by choice to freedom to act, or the freedom to choose to think it over.
there are two source of memory - genetic and memetic - body (inherited, innate) and experiences - including cultural training.
these two sources contribute to the selection process.
The consequence determines which selection proved to be sufficient, in relation to the objective.
As such triangulation is part of evaluating - value judging.
This implies that an individual is not bound by his upbringing…like the cunt continuously implies and cannot justify, resorting to her feminine word-games.
But you agree with her, no?
She’s a biatch of your tastes.
I cannot stand between lovers, whatever their methods and goals might be.
No standing needed in a nihilistic world where the only real standing is a requisite ground. Again a choice is made for those who’se narrative is cut from a singularly set mind to a double, and the contention of choice between the singular and the double can and does enigmatic from a preached triple alliance in terms of a non political alliance like that formulated in prior real struggle.
There is no singular anything…every choice produces multiple consequences, expanding or reducing options.
If the individual is protected from the consequences - like you and the cunt - you repeat the same choices, as if they were just as good as any other choice.
The consequences force the individual to correct his value judgments or perish, a stubborn nitwit.
For example, my pretentious twat…if Mary Land had no available and paid access to abortion clinics, no police force to protect her sluttish nightly excursions, she would suffer a quick end or worse…
Her whoring carefree days would end, abruptly.
It is nature, not I.
Morality is the collective imposing restrictions so as to preserve itself…and if not, then the collective dies along with all its members.
Why is abortion so contentious, twat?
Because it will determine the collective’s survival potentials over the long run.
If you protect stupid sluts you cultivate stupid sluts…and eventually no babies are being born to replenish deaths…then the group cannot compete…and is destroyed or absorbed…all because twats refused to see morality as what is is, and pretended their choices were illusory and inevitable…no regrets means nothing to change in your judgment.
Ok.out for a spell and be back soon hold that thought pleas
Heaven assuredly no ulterior motives e like nerd time out to think it overt or. Like that assuredly. later
back from the spelled out toward the singularl
The indiscreet woman should and usually suffers a retributive punishment unlike I am supposed to get, but word does get around and the probability favors those who choose to be discreet and careful, so even if they trick out now and then. yes they are morally culpable but remain safe from discovery and I am not saying mst bonds are such, so a general standard is sustained by the majority who want to stay away from abortions and practice safe sex in morally approved ways.
The singular , timeless unity between them remain undisturbed.
Out for another spell, me no prone to them unfortunately,
Yo, zinnat!
Can you fucking believe this thread now?!!
Pick one:
[-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< 
[-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o<
Does God Exist?
William Lane Craig says there are good reasons for thinking that He does.
That’s not the point though. What’s crucial is that within the astrophysicist community itself the “scientific method” is used in order to attempt to establish if the universe came into existence out of nothing at all or has always been around. There’s no equivalent of the Book of Genesis for them, is there? To go to one or another Bible and merely accept that the Creation account in it must be true because it is the Word of God?
Isn’t that basically what the Christians here fall back on? Immanual Can’s own entirely circular “logic”: God exists because it says so in the Bible. The Bible is true because it is the Word of God.
Okay, all well and good.
So, we should be able to link to the various media in the scientific community and note where, finally, once and for all, all astrophysicists are not only in agreement that the universe had an absolute beginning but that there can be little doubt that this beginning is attributable to God.
And then those like Immanuel Can can take it up from there here. Providing us with rock-solid evidence that it was the Christian God who created existence as we know it Himself. Explaining further how His own existence is the one exception. That in fact He Himself has always been around.
The math alone confirms it.
_
Joker was zinnat, and many more besides.
Yeah…
I enjoy when they come at me all at once.
Reminds me of the good ol’ days when i was fighting against hordes of morons, all ganging up…throwing their little needle spears, hoping I would be dealt a mrotla blow.
Ha!
See them gathering?
Ten you identify them as a kind.
They always need large numbers…herds, to dare to face you.
Does God Exist?
William Lane Craig says there are good reasons for thinking that He does.
Again, let’s think about this. Here is the author…just like the rest of us. An infinitesimally tiny speck of existence so utterly, utterly minute in the simply immense vastness of all there is…asserting that the universe must have a transcendent cause.
Then those among us who take it up from there. That this transcendent cause must be – is – a God, the God, my God.
And then at best the “evidence” they have revolves around philosophical/theological/intellectual contraptions like these: peterkreeft.com/topics-more … stence.htm
Or, here, Immanual Can’s “proof” that the Christian God must exist because it says so in the Bible and the Bible must be true because it is the Word of God. Well, and the videos, of course.
And thus philosophically God is deduced into existence. Immanuel Can merely takes this “logic” further by deducing the Christian God into existence. In other words, not your God if you are not a Christian.
And then even further up into the “intellectual contraption” stratosphere:
I figured mathematics would come to factor into this somehow.
What to believe, right?
Joker sent me a PM a few years ago that he was you. With a ; ), true, but online we’re stuck believing or not believing what anyone tells us about themselves.
All she does is gossip…and negate…and undermine…and dismiss, and mock.
She offers nothing…literally.
Nothing is what she is, and what she offers.
And nothing is what she receives.
Ahe demands that all be like her: a gullible, biter woman, that “changed her mind” but remained fixed on the same ideals underlying them all.
Ha!
No, shamelessly.
Shameles is you, cunt.
What’s funny is Var Mo, your new ally, believed in universal morality.
Now that’s funny, cunt.
You and he united because of your satyr hatred.
Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum…dum, dum dum…dummmmmmmmm