posted on May, 29 2011 @ 06:04 AM
Just for the record, this generally being somewhat more like a background, than part of the main-argument:
Quote: ["We on here on Earth to learn, but we can't be forced to learn."]
Doctrinal postulate...in case it should pop up again later.
And then a personal definition, narrowing the optional scopes of 'free will'. 'Free will' does not necessarily imply freedom from consequences. As
is clearly demonstrated in the alleged Eden scenario: "You can choose, but if you don't choose, as I want it, you'll have it coming".
I'd prefer to approach the subject of 'free will' by using known/observable information from cosmos, this way hoping I can avoid baseless theist
speculations as much as possible.
Cosmos basically means 'order' in a rational scientific/logic context, and it's not a 'suggested' order. It's imperative. From the initial
manifestations of the observable part of cosmos (be it Big Bang or quantum foam) to complexity the universe runs on lines of an order superimposed on
what theoretically (in scientific terms) is called 'chaos'. Chaos has no intrinsic definition, but means 'no order' (possibly structure), at least
as we know order/structure.
Thus 'chaos' can from some perspectives be said to be 'freedom'.
Contemporary theoretical physics not only gives an optional possibility of 'chaos', it actively points in the direction of at least some degree of
'chaos' being a 'reality'. But in physics there is no GUT (grand unfied theory)/TOE (theory of everything). The very small, micro-cosmos appears
to run on lines of chaos, while the very big, macro-cosmos, runs on lines of order, and the two models don't really meet completely, but function
quite well on each their territory.
Mankind can presently only demonstrably (on objective criteria) relate to cosmos, but disregarding such premature absurdities as the film "What the
bleep do we know" and incompetent efforts of 'quantum-religionism', there is an optional possibility of 'experiencing' chaos (no order) level
through the use of the alleged concept 'consciousness' (which is supposed to ALSO be non-cosmic in character).
I'm writing 'alleged', because while I personally lean strongly in the direction of a combination chaos/consciousness, the amount of insane and
incompetent speculations on the subject has brought this interesting research area into such a disreputation, that it's on par with
Naturally, as a sceptic, I distance myself as much as possible from the religious doctrines presented in OP, but on in overall, ideology-neutral,
perspective at least the universe DOES contain options of both order ('law') and chaos ('freedom'). Research (not guesses or speculations) could
gives us some information on the possibilities of both options for mankind.
Usually I'm not happy about fabulated science/theist syncretism, but when I cut away the theist terminology and -wrappings of the OP, I see some
competent and valid considerations, above the common pro-theist propaganda clichées.
PS The asking 'god' for anything is outside the scope or interest in my life, so I'll leave that to those who want it.