How do we have free will if God chooses the consequences?

[EternalForest]

So in the latest episode on free will, Leo said that God gives us free will to eat junk food, and we have to suffer the consequences. But the problem is that we don't choose the consequences, God does.

Why can't we choose to either:

A. Eat junk food with no negative Health consequences, or

B. Have the free will to choose negative health consequences for eating junk food.

I don't see how we have free will if this choice is out of our control

Edited September 28, 2021 by EternalForest

[Jakuchu]

It's you who is saying that negative health is negative. You are subscribing negativity on to those consequences. Being overweight, having diabetes or cancer is not absolutely negative. It is negative relative to how you want to be, which is not being overweight. Diabetes is not negative from God's "perspective". God loves diabetes

You do choose the consequence. Dunkin Donuts is it's own consequence. If you choose Dunkin Donuts, you are choosing diabetes. You can not dissect the consequence. The consequences don't appear immediately and so to you it looks like it is out of your control and something that is happening to you 

If eating donuts made you a into a healthy greek god, then reality would be shitty. The reason you value health is because there is prospect of disease 

 

Edited September 28, 2021 by Jakuchu

[EternalForest]

@Jakuchu Exactly, if I want to stay healthy, I no longer have the free will to eat what I want.

Edited September 28, 2021 by EternalForest

[Jakuchu]

4 hours ago, EternalForest said:

@Jakuchu Exactly, if I want to stay healthy, I no longer have the free will to eat what I want.

But what you don't get is, healthy is relative. You do have the free will to eat what you want. You just have to transcend the distinction between healthy/unhealthy and be content with the consequences. Nothing is constraining you to eat as much Dunkin Donuts as you want but your limited idea of what "healthy" means. If your idea of being healthy is a six pack, then donuts are not healthy because they don't allow you to have a six pack. Or having good condition, then sitting around the whole day is not healthy. That does not mean that sitting itself is unhealthy. It's unhealthy relative to your desire of wanting to have good condition 

Edited September 28, 2021 by Jakuchu

[gettoefl]

god defers to the bod and wants bod to choose to be god

[Dazgwny]

Well he said that was an advanced episode, advanced advanced advanced is the way he put it. He wasn’t wrong either, I actually had to watch it twice to try get myself fully aligned with his realisations. Took what I could from it conceptually, and tried to analyse and compare with awakenings of my own. It was deep, deeper than I’ve personally comprehended for myself as of yet. It certainly was advanced and much work and many more awakenings necessary I think to reveal such things

[EternalForest]

@Jakuchu Controlling the choices is irrelevant if I can't control the consequences.

Like, let's say I want to be a stunt driver and be able to do any stunt I want without crashing my car.

In theory, I have the free will to do any stunt I want. But I know darn well that if I fuck up my maneuver I could die. So therefore, I have free will to the extent of the maneuvers I have the skill to do that won't kill me.

Edited September 28, 2021 by EternalForest

[Someone here]

We don't have free will. Neuroscience has long ago debunked free will. 

[Mason Riggle]

I don't quite understand why people are so immune to the idea that there is no free will. It's so elegant, simple, and perfect. 

So many here look for Truth and then deny it when it's staring them point blank in the face. 

 

Edited September 28, 2021 by Mason Riggle

[Someone here]

4 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

I don't quite understand why people are so immune to the idea that there is no free will. 

They have no free will in the matter 

[Mason Riggle]

@Someone here I get that, but anyone presented with compelling evidence will helplessly change their beliflefs.. what is it about the evidence that isn't compelling??

Edited September 28, 2021 by Mason Riggle

[Someone here]

5 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

but anyone presented with compelling evidence will helplessly change their beliflefs..

You see.. This can only be true if free will exists. The assumption that certain input necessarily leads to certain output. But as you might know the universe is random and chaotic (not deterministic) . You can be faced with tons of evidence and still not accept it. Because randomness and uncertainty are essential to how reality works. It's not a linear process. 

[Jakuchu]

@EternalForest You are still busy dissecting reality into two parts. The choice you are making is the consequence

Crashing the car is as much part of reality as you are, as the stunt driver. So, why would God prioritize you (stunt driver) over the the crash (consequence)? You think that would be a good thing, but in reality that would make God ungodly. You think life would be exciting that way, but the opposite is the case. Life would be boring as hell. It's like a game where you can't die or loose. What would be the point of even playing that game. Dying, loosing, crashing etc. are consequences that you created in order to make life adventurous. Can't you see that? 

Edited September 28, 2021 by Jakuchu

[Mason Riggle]

If randomness is freedom, then it's the same type of freedom as not being in control.. it's random. Where's the freedom?

[Jakuchu]

26 minutes ago, Someone here said:

We don't have free will. Neuroscience has long ago debunked free will. 

How can something else control your decision making if there is only you? 

Edited September 28, 2021 by Jakuchu

[Someone here]

@Mason Riggle I didn't say randomness equals freedom.

The opposite of freedom is deterministic. The universe is random and chaotic. Not free. And not deterministic. it's a third option.

So people can be faced with tons of evidence and still not accept it. They can deny that. Because it's not a deterministic universe where(B) must follow (A).

 

[Mason Riggle]

@Someone here I think I misunderstood you.  I said 'anyone presented with compelling evidence will helplessly change their beliflefs..' You replied, 'This can only be true if free will exists.'.  The opposite is true. People 'helplessly' (unfreely) change their beliefs when presented with compelling evidence.  If I showed you your father's head on a pike, this would convince you of his death, unless you deny the evidence.  Either way, whatever you believe after I present you with evidence is not up to you.. Either you will find the evidence compelling, or you won't.. but it's not up to you which occurs. 

The randomness and chaotic nature of reality only strengthens the argument against free will.. I think we agree on this. 

I think denying the evidence of free will has more to do with how brains are programmed to evaluate evidence. 

Edited September 28, 2021 by Mason Riggle

[Someone here]

15 minutes ago, Jakuchu said:

How can something else control your decision making if there is only you? 

Obviously there is NOT only "you" if by "you" we mean the human avatar. 

[Mason Riggle]

@Someone here The 'No Freedom/Freedom' duality collapses.  What is left is 'being', whereby the only Truth is Now. 

Que sera, sera. 

[Someone here]

12 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

whatever you believe after I present you with evidence is not up to you.. Either you will find the evidence compelling, or you won't.. but it's not up to you which occurs. 
 

Exactly. I agree with this. 

Which should answer the question of "why people deny that they are not free despite the evidence".