Of course not. The workers should be allowed to take out their frustrations on society and their intimate partners. That or just let other places who don't allow such freedoms including personal belongings or electronics to document such events in the first place make all the money that will inevitably be made and perpetuate the abuse. What you don't know can't hurt you, right? What a silly thread.

So this is a non-scientific, fictional ("create a myth") kind of discussion? Neat if so.

Descartes isn't warranted to conclude that he exists based on the mere fact that he thinks because the thoughts aren't his - it's not Descartes who's thinking. — TheMadFool

Assuming we're not talking about telepathy, and even still, kind of a disturbing and dystopian topic. I'd say it's a safe bet they didn't have that technological capability during his time. Of course, who's to say. I can't recall if it was an urban legend or not but I remember hearing something about someone who started picking up radio signals from a filling he had and was able to hear the programs. Maybe he was just crazy though. Again, who's to say.

That’s like saying that if I accidentally hit someone with my car that I did so intentionally just because I chose to drive a car that day. — TheHedoMinimalist

No, it's not. A person, male or female, who is not under the influence of debilitating substances, who is not physically forced or coerced, and is aware of the fact that sexual relations produces kids, is literally what defines a legal adult, de facto of course. The idea that an adult who is not aware that sex may produce children is akin to a mental invalid, one that should legally not be allowed to drive a car, operate machinery, or otherwise hold any position beyond perhaps cooking fries or flipping a burger. And even that i'd remain skeptical on. There is no comparison. Sure, perhaps someone can become drunk or perhaps be ignorant enough due to young age who produces a child. On that tangent, someone can become drunk and run a bus from an orphanage off the road killing 50 children. There is no alleviation of responsibility. With exception to ignorance due to youth or mental incapacity which of course changes things.

a highly gifted phony — Matias

What about his assertions of what he believes as significant enough to write about that you yourself determine as "incredibly intelligent and well-read (written?)" do you deem "disingenuous"

Has anyone understood his theory of "fields of sense" and thinks that it is a milestone of contemporary philosophy ? — Matias

Apparently so. While I haven't looked into it, here is a description of it for anyone (mostly interested readers [not OP] who are) .. interested.

"It is still a widespread assumption that metaphysics and ontology deal with roughly the same questions. They are supposed to be concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and to give an account of the meaning of 'existence' or 'being' in line with the broadest possible metaphysical assumptions. Against this, Markus Gabriel proposes a radical form of ontological pluralism that divorces ontology from metaphysics, understood as the most fundamental theory of absolutely everything (the world). He argues that the concept of existence is incompatible with the existence of the world and therefore proposes his innovative no-world-view. In the context of recent debates surrounding new realism and speculative realism, Gabriel also develops the outlines of a realist epistemological pluralism. His idea here is that there are different forms of knowledge that correspond to the plurality of fields of sense that must be acknowledged in order to avoid the trap of metaphysics. " — Apparently Someone

process my emotions or almost break even in conversation — turkeyMan

You realize condoning or otherwise satisfying ill-conceived and counterproductive notions, behaviors, and desires is not "processing [your] emotions", right? And it's nothing to do with notions of sexuality and orientation.

What is this idea of "getting" or "losing" energy mean or translate as to you? Do you become physically drained or mentally invigorated/awakened/etc or both or vice-versa?

Eh. If this was one of those "funny forums" I'd rate this post 5 stars ironically.

Sleepwalking is non intentional. Normal pregnancy outside of .. "coerced measures" is. So. No. lol

it's also arguing that things like bright and loud exist only in the mind — Darkneos

While I can't currently access http://www.drugaddict.com/ official forums in order to find a reply of equal merit .. (perhaps they only existed in my mind as well) I'll try my best. Things as they are defined by the senses may only exist in the mind, but the properties that make them as they are remain quite independent of any conscious mind. Something is bright if it produces a luminosity beyond what the observer is relatively used to. Something is loud if it produces an audible wavelength of vibration also what is beyond whatever the particular observer happens to be used to. Absent of an observer, an audible wavelength of vibration (sound) can shatter a window, thus not only changing its default state of matter or being, but shattering or otherwise destroying it. Most people would call that pretty loud.

Ultimate truth tells us that nothing exists independent of mind

So what is he a corpse? I mean, if he's not speaking using his mind using thoughts or ideas formed using said mind .. yet tries to refer to a concept of "ultimate truth" processed, formed, or otherwise understood by again said mind, that is somehow and for some reason NOT dependent on (his or her) mind .. all there is would be the body. Long story short, just don't do drugs, kids.

Edit: Nah.. I have a cousin who knows people like this. He sounds like someone who has his "third eye opened" .. ;)

Now fiction aside, can we imagine a place without time? — TiredThinker

Becoming one with light (or in a capable ship) and traveling and its speed through the vaccum of space at 186,000 miles per second. Not quite the same thing but probably as close as we'd be able to get.

Without time as in never existed/outside of the laws of time or just say "frozen" in time, etc? It's a curious question that probably has a simple enough answer. I don't know it, though.

If it has intelligent or even any form of life or has beings capable of consciousness obviously they'd have to move or at least think. Wouldn't they?

Not every diametric response is a contradiction, some are affirmations or otherwise directed at possible onlookers. Though, you are correct.

Feeling like there is meaning in life requires feeling like you matter to the world, like you are valuable. — Pfhorrest

This is the childish if not downright animalistic viewpoint one undergoes, experiences, then hopefully sheds like a snake sheds its skin prior to reaching enlightenment ie. true self-worth as determined by the individual. In a world where slavery was not only common but law, did no enslaved person ever experience meaning beyond that of what of what his master conveyed or prescribed to him? I think not. Rare as it may have been.

If life didn't end , we wont need to do philosophy anymore in order to make sense of our failures. — Wittgenstein

I don't think philosophy is your thing, guy.

we are afraid of turning our life into a single big failure. — Wittgenstein

To who? The majority who can barely gather en masse without it turning into a mob/riot/fight? You are afraid of what you described, which is fair. So was I. However, it should be noted that one who can find purpose and value in what others deem as a "big failure" where the same struggle to find either in what is measured as "success" in material riches and influence should not be so easily discounted.

You’re not addressing the actual question of whether or not procreation is moral — khaled

It's neither moral nor amoral, intrinsically. It's a means not an end to a means, one that can result in either outcome. I could make a weapon that can be used to either end all criminality or end all justice and ensure the continuation of said criminality. Haste makes waste they say. Not paying attention and tossing caution to the wind resulting in offspring raised without proper guidance that will become a burden on society whether directly or indirectly through the welfare system or not being raised any better and ending up in prison sucking on the public taxpayer teat while another, possibly a victim of said person, has to work their fingers to the bone to put food in their mouth is of questionable morality, for starters. However, this is but one of many scenarios.

"People will be born therefore procreation is ethical" is a bad argument. The former says nothing about the latter. It's like saying "theft will occur therefore it is ethica — khaled

No doubt. Meanwhile what I was saying was .. okay let's for a second go back to the OP. At least his stated definition "living causes suffering". Suffering is (or causes) a negative emotion .. therefore it is bad and is the main reason for anti-natalism. Inversely, pleasure is (or causes) a positive emotion, therefore a life with more pleasure than suffering is .. good? Otherwise, a life with simply more suffering than pleasure is bad. Unless the argument an individual adopts in anti-natalism is "I can experience a lifetime of pleasure however one moment of suffering makes it not worth living" which the rational person or even a non-rational person would toss aside as non-nonsensical rubbish. So, that means, if life can be made to be more pleasurable than it is suffering, it is good and worth living. And who will help to ensure and/or correct it's current state toward this? Those who identify the problem and therefore its potential solutions, or those who do not?

Using people is not respecting the dignity of the individual. — schopenhauer1

But that's my point, friend. You may choose not to participate and create a person who you will raise to not only not do that but do everything in their power to prevent that. Not because they're "forced to" simply because you raised them to view doing so as beneficial and bringing joy to their person. Meanwhile, those who are raised without said belief will continue to do so and thanks to your non-participation will continue this unabated and unrestricted.

If a person self-sacrifices, that is different than sacrificing someone else for some cause. — schopenhauer1

The child will undoubtedly do what the child wants. The assumption that a child raised to receive joy from selflessness is "sacrificed" or otherwise forced to do something against their will is on par with the same idea toward a child raised to feel joy from selfishness, is it not?

Yet life is basically a much wider version of that. — schopenhauer1

Again, people will continue to be born, and without proper guidance, continue to be subject to the scenarios you provided. Until, someone with knowledge and perhaps guts, decides to raise others in opposition to this.

Bypassing suffering for the future individual is what matters. — schopenhauer1

What future individual? You're an anti-natalist!

and their dignity as people. — schopenhauer1

See above. People will continue to be born, either with the mission or at least inclination that they should or perhaps could better their fellow man and thus future selves in the process, or not. Regardless, births will continue. So. Do you, as someone who recognizes or at least identifies the current state of society and the world as "in need of improvement" enough to imply it needs to be improved have kids who may be taught to do so, or do others who either don't realize or couldn't care less have kids that just contribute to the degeneracy. The choice is and has always been yours.

In this context a 'law' is a decree or rule that can be enforced. I can say "Hey, everyone in my house has to wear pink socks to get in". Sure, I can ensure anyone I allow through my front door is wearing pink socks and threaten anyone who attempts to enter without with a trespassing charge or have them removed. No big deal. However, if I had said everyone on my block must wear pink socks, seeing as I have neither the means nor influence to enforce it, it's not a law. Is it?

Did Cicero make a legitimate point, or is this a case where Cicero the lawyer overcame Cicero the philosopher/statesman, and sanctioned violence? — Ciceronianus the White

Interestingly enough. If the article is historically accurate..

The encounter between the two groups passed without incident until the last pair at the back of each train began a scuffle. It was then believed that Clodius turned back and was wounded by a javelin thrown by one of the gladiators in Milo's party. — Wikipedia

Entirely depends on the facts of the case. Facts we will never know it would seem.

Ironically, just as it is purported the Roman Republic fell from internal conflict while the Roman Empire fell from external conflict, it would seem (and I could be so wrong) that perhaps Clodius' death was from a direct result of failure to ensure his own internal forces were loyal/under control/Stoic enough to avoid non-diplomatic squabbles (street violence). It's said Clodius' "group" were slaves, so perhaps they had nothing to lose really. I bet it was Milo's gladiators who first muttered the "s" word toward them who started it. Which also draws some of the "external conflict" into play in this event.

Long story short- "That's So Roman" .. *ba dum tss*

The imposition/don't cause harm premise. — schopenhauer1

What are your views on the trolley problem?

I'm sure you know people who actually think enough to consider anti-natalism and it's arguments are the minority. People will still keep having kids without a care in the world. So, just let them? This would seem to place any alleged concern of "human suffering" along with any alleged efforts or attempts to reduce it secondary to simple avoidance of personal responsibility. Would it not? Perhaps that's all it is to some, elimination of (personal) imposition. So this definition of anti-natalism it is not a "humanitarian" or "moral" belief that "delves into the deepest wells of selfless concern for one's fellow man in hopes of preventing suffering" but rather a simple and independent whim of one's own selfish, personal prerogative. Is it not?

Haven't read every single reply in this discussion but have the following been addressed or at least touched on?:

- Conditional anti-natalism which doesn't state all human existence is and will always be immoral simply for whatever reason be it the specific country, life circumstance, or state of society/the world one is in doing so would be "bad" or unwise ie. having kids if you're in a third world village that is already struggling to survive.

- Utilitarian? anti-natalism meaning you should only have kids if they will be your (more or less) main focus in life until they are able to live under a similar or better situation than you yourself, where said outcome is more likely than less likely due to planning, etc. As in, due to the horrors and potential misery that can be experienced in life you shouldn't "just have kids" because you "just wanted to" one day or are infatuated with your partner so much you want to "make one flesh" out of passion or otherwise just have something to do for in life for 18 years.

- Reactive? anti-natalism as in the belief that life (being born) causes suffering and so should be avoided at all costs unless you will raise or can otherwise be reasonably assured the life you bring into existence will actively work to make the world, society, life, etc. a better place for all thus defeating the anti-natalist premise. So, if you want your kid to "do what makes them happy" in life and you and your partner (or other children) don't seem to be exceptionally talented in skills that can help make the world a better place (being a genius, etc.) it should be avoided. However, if you will tirelessly ensure they end up on a path to helping others and improving the quality of life in general (being a doctor, scientist[?], all-around good and selfless person to be around, etc.) or perhaps you yourself, your partner or other children happen to be incredibly talented and therefore capable of doing great works to improve the quality of life and state of the world, it's "OK".

The terms I used are probably poor word choices but you can see the various forms that exist outside of the standard, resolute definition in the OP.

That means there is a finite amount of possible brain states, which would entail a finite amount of possible thoughts. However, math is infinite, and any number can be conceived, so there are an infinite number of possible thoughts. is this a problem for reductionism? — RogueAI

Reductionism meaning.. if a thing can be simplified, it should? In a way with there being only 10 true digits repeated or otherwise in an 'infinite' number of configurations, I would say it's not quite the same as 'an infinite number of thoughts' simply more of a pattern/holding place that again is really never more complicated than each of the 10 true digits it's made out of.

Neat and long overdue! 1,500 word total each post/response or altogether?

Looks interesting for far. Last sentence sums things up fairly well, imo.

My tetrachromat girlfriend telepathically communicates with her pet robin. I can assure you we most certainly can.

While the premise is admirable, the answer is pretty simple. The truths and/or morals we create and appreciate ourselves. Or perhaps even the inherent biological "compass" we have as to what is good, pleasurable, and well as opposed to what is bad, painful, and terrible as we all are capable of experiencing.

the root of all interpersonal relationships is not the community, but the individual. — Gus Lamarch

Define interpersonal.

I just think art isn't your thing man. To each their own, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, one man's trash is another man's treasure, the message of the flower is the flower, etc., etc.

I imagine it's not a question of who but of what- and no, not like that. Though I do subscribe to the possibility personally. The same thing that would rule a man in charge of the entire world and all its inhabitants is the same thing that would rule his lowliest subject, which is also the same thing that would rule a man on a planet inhabited only by himself. The beast within. Or, human nature to put it inconspicuously. It is in constant battle with a higher nature or calling that also exists within us all.

I believe, or at least like to think, there are two stages each with potentially different persons. Those who rule by succumbing to human nature, eventually gaining dominion over those who breathe by power of their own breath (influence to speak decrees, laws, etc. that are obeyed), followed by those who rule by overcoming human nature after first allowing themselves to be ruled and subjugated by those whose breaths they know are limited.

Ultimately, the individual rules themself. That doesn't mean listening to someone who has transient power over you or what you consider important (perhaps that's why you consider these things important?) isn't the best course of action to ensure this.

Diseases and plagues come and go, none of which have ever really stopped humanity for long. Perhaps, this pandemic instead shows us the true disease which plagues most societies, one that no vaccine made in a lab could ever hope to cure. In a word, dehumanization. Not just of one another or those whom we disagree/don't get along with- but our very selves.

How many hours a day are you on your phone, staring at your computer, your TV, your Xbox, what have you. How many hours are you actually talking to your fellow man face to face, not just talking like you'd do in a line to pass the time or make it less awkward or boring, but socializing, connecting, sharing ideas and feelings, and bonding. Odds are not many.

The fact that this lock down doesn't really interrupt the lives or quality of life of many (people use their phones and the internet, get food and nearly everything delivered anyhow, continue to numb their minds and senses with TV, video games, etc., and when out in public running an errand still rush back home as quickly as possible to get back to the monotony) should be a real eyeopener.

We can speak to anyone anywhere in the world- but can we understand or care for each other or appreciate their company? We can order nearly anything in the world, be it food or goods, and have it delivered to our door the same day- but can we appreciate it or procure said things ourselves without our precious devices? We can annihilate an entire nation in the push of a button or two- but why is even that seemingly not enough to avoid losing what those who came before us had?

What happened to the days of yore where kids would go outside to play until dusk with no problems because everybody knew their neighbors and families would play board games or perhaps watch a good movie before/while preparing a home-cooked meal to discuss their day or other family topics around. What has our species become? Something other than human I fear. Perhaps this is the meta behind the old religious adage of "gaining the world, but losing one's soul."

Can you think of something that doesn't exist (and never did) that isn't a derivative of something that exists in the human conscious (dragons, monsters, etc.) that people would want to look at?

Like, a random abstract painting of colors either coalescing together, spreading in all directions, or splatter art, etc. By this standard, the moment some artist first accidently spilled paint on his canvas makes any of the forms of art mentioned non-original. Doesn't it?

Art, specifically the viewing experience is much more than (forgive me for using this word but) "simple qualia." It is often a deep, philosophical, transporting, even transformational experience. Someone once said "the power of art is its ability to take something that no one thought was beautiful before and transfiguring it into something that is." Or something like that. Another said "it [art] brings affirmation in joy and consolation in sorrow.", essentially it has a redeeming quality. Take "American Gothic", it's just two people standing in front of a house. Or so it seems. Not quite willing to write out the meta/context but you could interpret/imagine a great more than what is displayed.

Assuming the apparent exceptions listed throughout this discussion are included- for some reason. And co-existence is used in the strict context of politics, simply meaning governance and diplomacy. Yes, someone leading something has to exist in some way, shape, or form. Granted with all you've arbitrarily defined as "what counts and what doesn't" it's a bit like asking can a quadrilateral room have more than 4 walls. Not really.

It gets harder to topple the next domino if the dominos increase in size until one doesn't fall over and the causal chain breaks. — TheMadFool

I find this interesting. A massive 2-ton boulder perched atop a hill may need only the strength of a child to push it over and produce an incredible amount of energy.

If a small domino is able to topple a slightly larger domino (and so on and so on), doesn't the energy increase (not from nothing simply the potential energy stored [by whatever placed it there]) or, I suppose it doesn't "increase" the potential energy was simply there all along, rather, doesn't the kinetic energy amplify?

"the group must always come before the Self" — Gus Lamarch

"Unus pro omnibus, omnes pro uno"
(one for all, and all for one)

You care about yourself, right? Wish to survive, live, and thrive? Others wish to do the same. Tell me, exactly how much land, resources, and people do you think you could protect on your own? How much can the larger group protect? So, by protecting the larger group and being selfless, you protect yourself and your own freedom to be selfish. Ironic, I suppose.

despite being human we’re still a lot different from serfs living in sod huts. — Brett

Are we really though? Sure we have more innovation, resources, and know how but, I'd argue, not much has changed internally beyond our surroundings and the various freedoms/circumstance taken for granted that resulting progress has allowed. We still share the same hopes, dreams, wants, wishes, fears, and then some those before us did. Be it a serf in a sod hut or a well off executive in a million dollar home. We embrace what brings us joy in life and seek to not only maintain and grow it, while simultaneously avoiding if not fearing that which brings us to question or poses an existential threat to what we know and love. The fears of today are not much different than those of yesteryear- oppression, war, death, disease, social unrest, etc. Neither are the timeless pleasures and sources of joy.

That doesn’t seem to relate to systems of coexistence. All it does is play with imaginary possibilities. — Brett

You may be correct however not long ago the same could be said to men who suggested the idea of mankind traveling the world through the skies or weapons that could annihilate entire city-states in the blink of an eye. All these things were imagined possibilities- that became reality. And most certainly do affect systems of coexistence.

outside of Eugen’s triangle — Brett

By the title of the post we're speaking in the context of 'political systems', which to my understanding means, governance and diplomacy. Correct me if I'm wrong. If no one is governing or engaging in diplomacy, we have anarchy- as included in the triangle. So, something outside of this triangle.. is something/someone governing. As AI was already dismissed that would seem to leave only humans. So, between a single individual governing everyone (monarchy) and all individuals governing each other (democracy) it would seem, at least in my mind, we've painted ourselves into a corner. Eager to hear any alternate forms of political systems (aside from anarchy, already included) that are outside of this triangle.

Side note about anarchy. It never lasts. Controlled anarchy perhaps. But not true anarchy. It is human nature to form or join groups that are mutually beneficial (or at least appear to be) to an individual's survival, happiness, and quality of life. An individual acting alone will never reach any notable position or ensure survival. Whether that group is formed from brute strength and control over others or wit, charisma, and hope for the future ("A leader is a dealer in hope" -Napoleon Bonaparte) is not an exceedingly relevant factor. It simply always happens that way. Essentially, one asks them self: "Why would I want to be running around in an anarchistic world not sure if I'm going to be clubbed to death or robbed or otherwise forced to flee from my home at any given moment, if I can just join these guys who will protect me? I'm going to have to work and provide for myself either way, so, why not do it in a favorable and peaceful setting?"

What I meant is that once the economy served the people: it’s existence created jobs, taxes, development, etc. — Brett

Do you not have a job or know someone who does? Do you not have any public parks, sidewalks, roads, emergency services, etc. funded by taxpayer dollars? You don't live in a house? You don't have any new buildings being constructed nearby? You don't have a military that prevents I dunno whatever foreign boogeyman you're been instructed to fear from walking through your streets and calling it their own? It's all there man.

the economy is beginning to look more important than lives. — Brett

It's because lives are so important the economy has such a high priority. The economy is wealth which is basically resources. They're not called 'resources' because they're commodities, or non-essential things that just bring us extra pleasure whenever we please. It's what allows us to live and survive, including defense.

But back to the triangle. I stand by the idea it covers all possibilities of what defines a 'political system', as well as the opposite, being anarchy. Eager to hear any others.

will the biological and technological evolution bring you to something totally new in terms of coexistence? — Eugen

As a result of biological evolution, it would seem doubtful. We'd still be human. We'd either- possibly- just become more intellectually-inclined, less violent, and more tolerant of one another. We'd have less and less of a need to be "on top" of our fellow man to develop properly and go through life with contentedness and more humble. Or, perhaps the exact opposite seeing as certain refined qualities can seem 'boring' or 'unappealing' to some in terms of relationships and eventual procreation, especially compared to the allures and potential gains of the opposite. It could go either way I imagine.

Technology is interesting, if not alarming. If a scientist one day invents a true AI simulation 100% indistinguishable from reality, where we can all be gods of our respective universe and obviously life, and is able to allow anyone to test it and "return" to tell about it- I got a hunch many, many people would participate. That, obviously, would change everything. Aside from that, anythings possible sure. Maybe one day we'll invent a miniature power device that is powered by itself (or similar scenario) that can power a car indefinitely - or a pill that costs a billionth of a cent to make that will give you all the nutrition and energy you need for a day - or apartments that miniaturize you upon entry allowing 100,000 people to each live, sleep, and wake up in their own private dream mansion that altogether takes up no more space than your favorite corner store. That would solve, or at least change, everything.

Today we are the economy, except that it also operates as a separate entity in the sense that we have very little control over it, we virtually serve it. — Brett

That's like saying just because your body is different from your mind it's a burden and you're enslaved to it because you have to use it to make yourself/it breakfast every morning.

The only notable point about it being a 'separate entity' is that no you can't club someone else over the head and become richer. Not openly as an individual anyway. Though.. you could always advocate for war. I suppose that is an individual doing what I said cannot be done as one.

Perhaps I'm just a bit slow but has a point/prevailing argument/consensus been reached on anything relevant to this thread- qualia, consciousness, etc?

For anyone else not intimately familiar.

"Examples of qualia include the perceived sensation of pain of a headache, the taste of wine, as well as the redness of an evening sky. As qualitative characters of sensation, qualia stand in contrast to "propositional attitudes", where the focus is on beliefs about experience rather than what it is directly like to be experiencing." — Wikipedia

I suppose I just don't get it. The fact the average person enjoys and focuses more on the sensations of direct experiences as opposed to "what they mean" is supposed to mean.. what exactly?

Selfish realist.

Politics are basically governance and diplomacy. Anarchy is a lack of politics. So, you want something outside of one person controlling everything and everyone controlling everything- that's also not AI. I'm not quite sure where to go from there. Something like seeing a groundhog shadow or thunderstorm to decide on what to do and what not to do? You could have a lottery and alternate or choose a random position in between either extreme to follow for a time. There's no politics if someone isn't following someone else, even if that someone is themselves (the larger majority).

Yes, so again there is just the one path - the one it knew all along that we would choose. — 8livesleft

My dude, it's not controlling you or making you choose anything it just knew. Obviously if we judge the past from the present sure, there was only one path, what freakin' happened. I don't know where we come off saying it was the only thing that could have, same with future events. It's not like someone close to us died and we're being sympathetic saying "it was just his time" or something.

Evolution only got us to the point of directing our biological needs and abilities. We still have to make decisions based on those needs and abilities. — 8livesleft

Why not replace the word 'evolution' with 'God' then?

Interesting take. But, evolution is not a sentient thing that directs our actions. — 8livesleft

There is no proof of any sentient thing directing our actions. If so, I would love to see some. So that I may bury it and it may never see the light of day. lol.

there is no other path except the one laid out by it — 8livesleft

It, allegedly, creates a world or environment of many paths, it just happens to know what you will end up choosing. Take the atheistic approach of evolution. Millions of years of whatever, blah blah, the circumstances are still same. It's something (in this case not an entity but an event or series of events) that defines all we are able to experience thus do. So, because of evolution we don't have free will? The two are interchangeable, God and evolution in the sense that something greater than us is responsible for not only why we're here but all we will ever see, hope, and do.

Free-will only makes sense if the being was not an omni. — 8livesleft

Again just because it created everything doesn't mean it controls us like an RC toy.

it would appear that it isn't an omni — 8livesleft

Oh, great then. Existential crisis averted.

a lot like every other god of the time: a reflection of ourselves. — 8livesleft

"That, Detective. Is the right question."

I was always somewhat confused by this premise. Say psychics are real, who communicate with.. God knows what. Right. They're not weaving your fate, they're simply reporting it. Whether or not this person exists or not, you would, by some infinitely complex web of circumstances, events, mannerisms, inhibitions or lack thereof, choose something or another. Therefore, if I somehow predict you were to do something, it doesn't mean in an absolute sense you were unable to do any other thing, simply I knew what you were going to choose to do. Which in human terms is explainable enough. I happen to know you fancy gambling and have bought a lottery ticket every week for the past year and a half. So.. I could "predict" that you would buy one this week as well. Or, say I know you happen to be short on cash this week, I would then "predict" that you wouldn't. Say I work for the lottery and did some snooping around and determined the winning lottery ticket is at Store #123 in some city somewhere. Say I even know it's the very last ticket on the roll. Obviously, I could predict the person who walks into the store who usually buys a lottery ticket will in fact, win the lottery. It's about knowing again an infinitely complex web of events, circumstances, habits, etc. that no human could ever know.

The God aspect does complicate things. Seeing as by definition all things were created/set in motion by God, obviously... yeah. You have an interest in gambling due to some either biological mental configuration that makes you a risk-taker or you happened to be born in a family who buys lottery tickets often, both that were outside of your control and allegedly the result of God.

Absent of strict logical fallacy (ie. being logically incorrect/flawed) I'd imagine it's something of oversight, myopia, or lack of consideration observed by another in your premise/statement/claim that perhaps was undetected/not addressed by you. Not to say you're "flat out wrong" simply missing something, basically.

I even ended up flooding my mother's bathroom by leaving a tap on, to the point where the electrics went out downstairs, as a result of being so preoccupied by replying to a thread on this forum. My mother was not at all impressed — Jack Cummins

Lol. Priorities, mate. At the same time at least it was due to you pursuing your education and self-betterment and not from being too doped up on a pipe. So. I'd have laughed after the fact too.