Something I have noticed about these mass shootings is that they seem to be planned well in advance. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

That is an interesting observation. You're right. It's definitely looks like a slow boil. I think there should be laws that forbid the sale of a gun until the buyer answers at least one question in writing: "Do you want to engage in a mass shooting of unarmed people?" I know that anyone in their right mind would simply answer "No." But if you're crazy enough to say yes to that question, you shouldn't be allowed to buy the gun. Right now we don't even ask that obvious question. We can debate if their should be other questions to ask someone before they buy a gun, but we should consider asking this obvious one.

In the broadest sense, Free Will is the ability to do whatever you want, uncontrolled.
Limits to Free Will are facts and any choices we have are between predetermined options. I would fly across the universe to see the other side, but I realize I must have:
1. air
2. water
3. food
4. shelter
5. exercise
6. time
7. love.
Just as a science will only work because of predictability, earth is where I dwell. I try to imagine the other side, but I seem limited by the synthesis of what I already know.
However, there is hope for Free Will. The plain proof of Free Will is the feeling of choices made, and thoughts had, which no one could foresee. This alone does not prove Free Will, but determinism cannot be complete without complete predictability.

Today’s scientific arts are far from perfect predictors, especially when forecasting the roots of thought. Pure Determinism is theory. Compatibilism describes what I actually experience. Many of my thoughts correlate with my desire, and often there is no other information regarding the roots of those thoughts to consider.

The bottom line is that you may have a small amount of free will in a mostly deterministic world.

That's a good question. Some atheists probably worry that the God of the Bible does exist and will damn them to hell for eternity. In that sense, they probably hope that God doesn't exist. On the other hand, some atheists probably wish that an ever forgiving and understanding God does exist who will let them into paradise after they die, notwithstanding any disbelief.

I have heard theories questioning whether "nothing" can exist or whether there can be an empty world. Maybe an empty world can exist. One thing I know is that at least one world (universe) exists. The causal chain that led to my existence is easy enough to scientifically trace, but only to a certain point. Science tells me it all started with a big bang; and religion tells me God willed it. But that doesn't really answer the question. I'm still wondering what caused the big bang or what caused God.

When I start thinking about it like that I obviously wind up in an infinite causal regression. But if there is an infinite causal regression, then there is no initial cause. On the other hand, if there isn't an infinite causal regression, then there is an initial cause that was not caused by anything- a spontaneous existence. Either way, this ancient philosophical question seems to be resolved- Existence is a fact for which there isn't cause.

So I'm inclined to believe that purpose can not exist without consciousness. The bigger question that I'm getting at is: Did the Universe exist without a purpose before consciousness emerged?

Purpose can be defined as any action a person takes to achieve a goal they have in mind. I employed a frying pan for a certain short-term purpose that I had (having a meal). Afterward, I exercised my body to achieve a longer-term purpose - staying healthy. I worked at my job for certain purposes, etc.

When a being is capable of experiencing the notion of planning something and seeing it to fruition, a valid purpose or meaning to their life is experienced and thus exists, even if it is only relevant to the being thinking it. For Example, if a Creator created an ant colony to dig through his soil and make it fertile, an individual ant may see its individual purpose as carrying a single grain of sand from point A to point B. If the ant experienced the idea of planning to carry the grain of sand from one spot to another, and then finishes it, is it possible to say the ant was wrong about its purpose? Isn't any plan that comes to fruition a correct interpretation of a purpose of one’s life.

If a Creator created humans with a purpose, I don't think that means that purposes contemplated by individual humans never exist. If a Creator never existed, would the greatness or superiority of one purpose over another be dependent on the intelligence of the being who contemplates it? Who could judge?

Can true "nothing" exist? The main question in this discussion assumes the plausibility of "nothing:" Why is there something rather than nothing? If nothing isn't possible, then this discussion is easily answered as there is something because nothing is impossible.

However, this discussion is not that easily answered, because nothing exists mathematically: (x-x= nothing). Nothing can exist as empty space, a true vacuum where there isn't a single particle, energy or any other matter. According to both the Big Bang theory, and the Stories of Creation, large areas of nothing existed. "Nothing" is anything that is outside that which exists, and "nothing" has no other describable qualities.

I like to try to imagine the beginning of all Creation. Not just what was created after the Big Bang or what was created by a Creator, but what could have existed before that even. It seems to me that there must have been a "First Thing" wherein nothing was the only thing that existed before this "First Thing."

Is a plausible answer to Why is there something rather than nothing,: "No Reason can be stated, because No Thing, including a reason, could have existed before the First Thing?

If Purpose can not exist without a consciousness, did the universe not have any purpose before consciousness emerged?

"Whereas purpose without its phenomenal counterpart can exist within nature and our machines." How would you say a purpose exists in Nature without a consciousness being aware of it?

I guess thinking hammers aren't possible, but if they could, I wonder if they would be happy with their lot in life. I agree that a hammer has a purpose to us in the here and now because we exist. But if thinking beings cease to exist, wouldn't the hammer cease to have a purpose, and be just a collection of atoms, subject only to purely mechanical forces of nature?

I don't know at what age "free will" starts. I'm not sure if I have much of any free will to mention now. Children are often told what to do, how to do it, and when. Sometimes I tell my wife that we should just let the children do whatever they want every now and then. As adults, we work and do things we don't always want to do in order to have precious moments of "doing whatever we want." So when we have our free time, we often have a limit to our free will by having only a few options available. For example, we may want to have a milkshake while skating around the rings of Saturn, but that is not a choice that is actually available to us.

Most things that we may desire to do have some sort of payment involved. Even just watching TV will require forgoing something else and at least paying for electricity. Suddenly our available choices are quite narrow. We next factor in environmental upbringing factors and genetic predispositions. Finally we add the mechanical movement of chemicals in one's brain that could, for example, compel us to seek a glass of water. We arrive a picture of our daily lives which does not leave very much room for any type of true freedom of choosing between many options for how we will behave and think.

That being said, there may yet be a sliver of free will at the point when two available options are truly equal in preferability and pre-existing compelling factors. Think about that, if all the factors that can compel a human's will to act in a certain way are equal between 2 available options, is that when Free Will can start? Or will the human break down and be unable to choose between the 2 equal choices. I wouldn't call that particular choice randomness. I would choose to call that free will.

That is correct. Moreover, the identity of a thing can change from one moment to another, and it is also subject to how every thinking being in the universe can interpret that identity. The First thing in the Universe either spontaneously emerged or always existed. If Purpose is also "a thing" was there no "purpose" before the First Thing and therefore no objective purpose to the universe?

. That is correct. The soul is not physical, but it can also be called "consciousness." There is no doubt that one's consciousness exists. "I think, therefore I am" proves thought, consciousness, or "soul" exists. The bigger question is what proof is there that the soul exists outside a physical body or material brain.

Most things are predetermined. From our physical features, to the place we live (Earth), even to our proclivities (I like to consume oxygen, water and certain amino acids and proteins). However, I want to consume Helium only, and I want it to give me as much pleasure as consuming chocolate or steak, and I want it to make me so healthy that I live in bliss for one million years. Determinism says that is not going to work; but my free will says that regardless of what works or not, I want it and desire it: thus a Will that desires exists, and this desire is an example, albeit one of the few examples, of free will. Even if the mechanical movement of particles "causes" me to have this desire, the particles and molecules which cause me to experience thought are collectively, "me."

I think, therefore I am proves that your thoughts exist, and nothing more. However, it does not prove that other things don't exist. I think you can reasonably rely on being accurate about certain emotions that you experience, even though emotions fluctuate. For example, if you feel happy, it is not possible to refute the quality of that experience, even if it is only for a moment, and later you feel a different emotion. Moreover, the "I" in I think, therefore I am" needs to be defined. Is it all of your thoughts, or only the thoughts you find agreeable. For example, if you experience a surprising piano falling on your head, and you question whether you imagined that or not, at some point it becomes evident that you did not "will" that to happen, and yet you experienced it. I think we can say that something other than "yourself" actually caused an object, that is not you to hit you. or something other than yourself caused you to have an illusion of being hit. At this point we can even begin to separate thoughts coming from the unconscious mind from thoughts coming from the conscious mind and going the step further and saying that only your conscious mind is "you" and thoughts that you expectantly and undesirably experience from time to time originate from some place other than you.

Agreed. Life after death is possible.

I used to think there would be no meaning to life if there was no afterlife. I thought that if I and other beings didn't contemplate the things I did, they would have no meaning. This is still accurate because "Meaning" and "Purpose" can only exist in the minds of thinking beings. If there are no beings to contemplate "Meaning" or "Purpose," life will indeed cease to have meaning at that time. That follows that life continues to have meaning as long as beings are capable of contemplating "Meaning."

This would be true whether there is an additional realm for eternal contemplative bliss or not. I think the real question is: If there was such a realm of eternal life, how would the meaning of life be different?

WHY IS THERE SOMETHING AND NOT NOTHING? There has never been an answer to this question because an answer does not and cannot exist. When we observe the Universe, we observe Cause and Effect which we describe as movement of matter. If we rewind all of the effects and causes, we come to a First Thing or Cause. Some people believe a God or a Spirit was the First Thing, and other people believe it was a point of matter.

Regardless of what the First Thing was, the First Thing either:

1. always existed or
2. spontaneously emerged.

If we are asking what caused the First Thing to either spontaneously emerge or always exist, the answer must be: nothing – Something appears spontaneously if nothing caused it to appear; and something always existed, if it was not created or caused.

Either way, there could not have been any pre-existing cause for the emergence of either God or things absent a god. Since nothing could have existed before the First Thing, a purpose could not have existed before the First Thing.

Since no thing existed before the First Thing, the answer to the question: WHY IS THERE SOMETHING AND NOT NOTHING? is “No Reason.” There was No Reason or Purpose or any other thing existing before the First Thing in the Universe. This conclusion does not mean that there is no purpose to the Universe now. The absence of an original purpose for existence results in thinking beings being able to define their own purpose.

Although a cause or purpose for starting existence could not have existed, I, as the evolution of existence can perceive doing things with purpose, and thus purpose exists now.