NOT MAGIC AT ALL

Interesting point, and with some weight behind it, depending on how you look at the question.

As always I look at it from what the bible teaches, and according to that there are three possible destinations, two of which are connected.

According to the bible, all of humanity has a choice from two possible eventual outcomes, quite simply life and death. By death as a final outcome the bible does not mean death as we know it, which it looks on simply as a dreamless sleep from which the "dead" can be awakened by resurrection, rather it means what it calls the "second death" which is complete and utter destruction, from which there is no return.

So where does the 3rd option come in?

At what is known as the last supper, Jesus instigated a "New Covenant" with his followers. If they stayed faithful they would be anointed with Holy Spirit and then, again if faithful, would be taken to heaven in due time to rule with Christ for the duration of his 1,000 year reign. That covenant would not apply to all, but just to a limited number, there would be others who would have the opportunity of resurrection onto the earth after Armageddon.

So there is only one route to death, unfaithfulness, but two routes to life depending on whether or not you are spirit anointed one to heaven to serve as Kings and Priests, and one to Earth to be amongst those ruled by that kingdom.

The choice as to which road to life you are on, is God's not yours, but the choice as to whether or not you are on the road to life in any form is yours.

The "road map" for both roads to life is in the bible.

That's exactly what happens. We all take different paths but then we all have the same fate, death.

True. I was thinking more intimately. But Idk.

In fact, such is the teaching of Universalism. That, in as much as St Augustine said that our hearts are restless until they rest in the Divine, such is the only place where we can ultimately come to rest.

By free will we could in fact never "choose" to reject the divine, for given that the Divine wills the very best for us, and given that we do indeed wish the very best for ourselves, the idea that any human being fully informed would reject the Divine is fundamentally incoherent. And if not fully informed, the free will argument that is used in support of different fates becomes fundamentally flawed.

So we each have our different paths until, fully informed by the infinite ways of Reality-as-is, we come to "rest".

It seems to me that if "acceptance" by "free will" of God's love is required, and a time limit set to such acceptance, then various fates can be envisaged. Yet if we think more in terms of becoming aware of a Love that is eternally "given", and set no limits in time, then the Universalist conclusion seems a genuine hope.

Any why should one not hope that eventually all will be reconciled with each other, in a state that, at this moment, "eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of humanity conceived." (as The Good Book has it)

Soft soap? Pie in the sky? Well, just think for one moment that such a hope means that we, at every moment now, should seek to make such a dream be true. The demands upon us, in each and every moment, are anything other than soft soap.

"That love is all there is, Is all we know of love."

Emily d***inson



And Meister Eckhart..."Love has no why"

Decisions based on a coin flip

N: The decision to base a decision on a coin flip may or may not be predetermined…

E: If we assume free will; then choices can be made between alternatives. I have been thinking that a person cannot ‘not’ choose because not choosing is the choice of not choosing.

E: One of the advantages of posting our ideas (aside from the pedantic gratification) is that peers (or in my case superiors) point out flaws in our arguments and, as a result, we learn. (Or, in some cases, we do not learn and cling desperately to a failed thesis) I choose abandon my failed thesis. So, yes, you are correct, many actions (probably most) are not chosen. (Here comes the however) However, not choosing is not a choice, it is automatic.

E: Anyway, at first I thought you we referring of a literal coin toss (decision to decide) which would be intentional. If I understand you correctly, in this case, you are using the term ‘coin flip’ allegorically and if so, yes some choices are based on intuition and are thus independent of reasoning and intention, and some choice are based on reasoning and are intended. (i.e.Some choices, and the resulting actions, are intentional, some choices are unintentional. e.g. some actions are habitual, and some actins are reflex) Thank you for the help.

E: What is the basis of a choice? First, choices are based on wants and needs. Wants and needs determine what is valued and that which is valued is sought (the goal). The goal is a factor, to some degree, in what alternative is chosen. The chooser, taking many factors into consideration, makes a probability estimated on the chances of attaining the goal.

E: Choices, many times, maybe most times, are based on past experience. If, for example, a coin is flipped one hundred times and has always come up heads. The chance that the coin will come up heads on the next toss is still fifty percent. Choices are no more than probability estimates.

E: When a particular action has, in the past, always resulted in the desired outcome; then the inclination is to assume a high probability of the outcome occurring again.

E: What do you think?

Response to post #13


N: …the outcome of the coin flip cannot be consciously affected by the flipper.

E: Some may argue with that statement but I can’t.

Well I did once know someone who could call it correctly 7 times out of 10 but whether or not he was actually influencing it himself like he claimed.......................

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm......I think that guy must have been possessed by a demon!!!

Theoretically, if a person knows enough physics and can adjust each flip to end in an outcome they desire, then it would be technically possible to affect the toss, but not only would that require impressive amounts of calculation for each flip, but also an impressive amount of control of the self to be able to fine tune yourself to such a degree.

Choice is based on desired intent VS the well being of those around us.

I simply don't handle others in a manner in which I wouldn't want to be handled and for the most part that is harming or inconveniencing them.

It comes from a simple sympathy and empathy that it is not their fault that they are here and I don't want to make it any worse on them than it already is - Even if it were to benefit me to do so.

The value of my self respect and integrity is worth more to me than anything monetary or of this world.

However my choices can be frowned on by others based on their subject and trivial moral principles.

For instance I have a lot of free time on my hands but lend none of that time to charity work.

Guilt nudges sometimes for choices like that but it is easy to override that guilt when looking back on my past life and taking notice of the way that others have regarded me.

Plus also realizing that the time spent learning what I did could have, instead, been used to learn how to inconvenience people for my benefit - Especially in a world where most have demonstrated that they don't deserve any better of me.

Also adding the fact that I do not know where or why I am and suffered in doubt and confusion for many years while others laughed - It's not often that I have shame when choosing myself over others - Only in instances where the choosing of myself can be considered lazy and selfish but not anywhere near detrimental to the well being of others.

So my choices are based on

1. The limits I attribute to myself for the sake of morality.
2. And lifetime education and experience from understanding my situation, the environment and the way most people in that environment conduct themselves.

i'm willing to give it a try.

You make me laugh. I like that. thanks

my pleasure.
it was my will that caused it?

Yes. Determinism does assume that. For clarification, I do not believe this to be the case, I was playing devil's advocate, which is why I started my post with those two words.



No, it would not.



Yes.




Correct.

Again, I was playing devil's advocate.