I was in a talk about freewill, and had put some arguments up, however an answer was not forthcoming. I am however to curious to let it lie there so maybe someone else will be interested.

The talk started with the concept of souls having agreed beforehand that they would engage in certain activities, like rape. If we agreed to this beforehand, we cannot choose anything now.

I say:
"You argue for freewill and the consequences that follow from that viewpoint. If there is no freewill there are consequences that follow from that. Seeing that the truth about this is hard to discern, in what could be called an objective fashion, how can we know which is true? You - We - ironically "choose" to follow one or the other path, but we can't know if what happened was freewill or not. So we guess or believe either path is true."

The other half of the talk said that me arguing for having agreed to this life beforehand was me avoiding responsibility for my life, to which I respond:

"Well thats not entirely true. One of the consequences of no freewill, that we agreed to this before coming here, is that, at the end there is only one actor, Brahman as a name could be, or God if you choose. This means, since all is connected, energetically, that I am Brahman, and ultimately responsible for everything.

So from that point of view, freewill gives you personal accountability, but not from the workings of nature ie. you are not accountable for earthquakes and whatnot. But no free will gives you accountability for everything including earthquakes, because you are Brahman and being Brahman is ultimate responsibility.

To me it seems that if responsibilty is the most important issue, I Am your best bet "


Right now it dawns on me that having "someone" responsible, absolves ones Self. So if there is a God outside of That I Am then that God is responsible. If there is no God outside That I Am, then I Am responsible. Instead of "God" you could say "The Universe" or "Reality" or "DNA ((made me do it)). It does not change the issue of responsibility.

a

free will carries the responsabilty of respecting others free will, even if there are no others.

it's an oroborous kind of thing, you always end up eating your own tail.

the question who is god are we god is irrelevant in this particular case, as of now we are still a "separate self"
therefore lving under the Laws that are present in this state of existence.

this thread boils to a discussion about karma, and im sure the hidden hand message will be refered to as in when the OP mention pre existing roles or agreements for the role of souls.

Originally posted by l_e_cox
This makes the concept of determinism, or "fate" an anti-freedom social control concept.

Yes important observation.

Originally posted by l_e_cox
A strong sense of responsibility goes with the belief that one is free to make one's own choices. The belief that one's choices are other-determined tends to be accompanied by a poor sense of responsibility.

As was the argument I heard before.

Originally posted by AnotherYOU
this thread boils to a discussion about karma, and im sure the hidden hand message will be refered to as in when the OP mention pre existing roles or agreements for the role of souls.

No. Karma is a byproduct of having no free will.



And perhaps you are right I_e_cox, this might not be the pertinent forum, perhaps I should go to Infidels