The Democrat Party Hates America

[Age]

Theologically, Gary, you must understand that God is blameless.

Theologically of course.

Either God is to blame or God is not to blame.

For 'what', exactly?

Which is it?

That all depends on what you are referring to, exactly.

If God is blameless, then does that mean humans are to blame?

Again, for 'what'?

And if humans are to blame, then if Trump creates a disaster will it be Trump and those who voted for him that are to blame?

What do you mean by 'disaster', exactly?

And if it is Trump and those who voted for him that are to blame, will God hold them accountable?

LOL On the scale of things, what "donald trump" has done, and could do, is relatively NOTHING, AT ALL.

It is just more of the evolutionary process leading up to what will, and did, eventually be-come.

And if not, are lefties not held accountable also? And if humans are not held accountable then who or what is?

In relation to 'what', exactly?

Fate? The Devil?

Once, and if, you understand 'fate', 'free will', 'determinism', 'devil', and 'God', fully, and exactly, then, and only then, all of what has played out, and will play out, will make perfect, and crystal clear, sense.

Until then you can keep presuming and believing things, OR, you can keep learning, and knowing, things. The CHOICE 'is yours'.

[Gary Childress]

Is that a convoluted way of saying that if Trump's reign is a disaster then it's God's fault?

Theologically, Gary, you must understand that God is blameless.

Theologically of course.

God most certainly is not blameless.

For I humbly suggest that God accepts full responsibility for all of humanity's sins and foibles, for it is God who set the necessary boundary (attenuation) on human consciousness so that this grand ("dream-like") illusion of us standing on this spinning orb, flying through the spatial arena of God's mind/cosmic womb, will seem natural and make sense to us.

And that's why - in the end - all of our earthly transgressions (no matter who you are, or what you've done) will be completely forgiven (yes, even the worst of us).
_______

you human beings learn best from your mistakes. And, In the scheme of things, in the days when this is being written you human beings are, really, still, only in the infancy/toddler stage.

'I' have set things in a trajectory so that, eventually, you human beings, collectively, will 'grow up', 'mature', and, finally, become Truly responsible. But, again, there is NO rush.

That is very gracious of you.

[FlashDangerpants]

you human beings learn best from your mistakes. And, In the scheme of things, in the days when this is being written you human beings are, really, still, only in the infancy/toddler stage.

'I' have set things in a trajectory so that, eventually, you human beings, collectively, will 'grow up', 'mature', and, finally, become Truly responsible. But, again, there is NO rush.

as delusions of grandeur go, you make the one about being God's voice seem small.

[BigMike]

... human beings, collectively, will 'grow up', 'mature', and, finally, become Truly responsible. But, again, there is NO rush.

Age, let’s talk about this idea of “True responsibility.” The concept is powerful, but if we understand it in the context of free will, we’re leaning into a myth. Physically speaking, free will is impossible—it defies the principles of cause and effect, and everything we know about conservation laws. If our actions are determined by a chain of causes, stretching back through factors we don’t control, how can we genuinely be “responsible” in the way we typically imagine?

What I wonder is this: why don’t more people have the courage to fully accept this scientific understanding once they acknowledge it? Why do we keep grasping for a sense of personal responsibility and free will when, deep down, the evidence tells us that our choices are shaped by the system we’re embedded in—the surroundings we’ve collectively created? If we truly want to improve the world, wouldn’t it make sense to shift our focus to changing these underlying systems? After all, they’re the real drivers of our behavior and the conditions we live under.

[Alexis Jacobi]

What I wonder is this: why don’t more people have the courage to fully accept this scientific understanding once they acknowledge it? Why do we keep grasping for a sense of personal responsibility and free will when, deep down, the evidence tells us that our choices are shaped by the system we’re embedded in—the surroundings we’ve collectively created? If we truly want to improve the world, wouldn’t it make sense to shift our focus to changing these underlying systems? After all, they’re the real drivers of our behavior and the conditions we live under.

If “they” did arrive at the awareness of a need to “change these underlying systems”, would the choice to do so be a freely chosen?

[BigMike]

What I wonder is this: why don’t more people have the courage to fully accept this scientific understanding once they acknowledge it? Why do we keep grasping for a sense of personal responsibility and free will when, deep down, the evidence tells us that our choices are shaped by the system we’re embedded in—the surroundings we’ve collectively created? If we truly want to improve the world, wouldn’t it make sense to shift our focus to changing these underlying systems? After all, they’re the real drivers of our behavior and the conditions we live under.

If “they” did arrive at the awareness of a need to “change these underlying systems”, would the choice to do so be a freely chosen?

No. Of course not. It would be caused by external influences.

[Alexis Jacobi]

If an individual has no agency, and a society is composed uniquely of persons with no agency, yet a change is initiated, then am I to understand your philosophy as suggesting that the “cause” lay outside of those persons?

If this is so, can your indicate where the cause lies?

Remember: You are proposing a change in wealth distribution and have suggested that: “If we truly want to improve the world, wouldn’t it make sense to shift our focus to changing these underlying systems”.

You say that no person could freely choose to shift focus. Your proposition is baffling to me. Can you explain more about what the agency of change would be?

[BigMike]

If an individual has no agency, and a society is composed uniquely of persons with no agency, yet a change is initiated, then am I to understand your philosophy as suggesting that the “cause” lay outside of those persons?

If this is so, can your indicate where the cause lies?

Remember: You are proposing a change in wealth distribution and have suggested that: “If we truly want to improve the world, wouldn’t it make sense to shift our focus to changing these underlying systems”.

You say that no person could freely choose to shift focus. Your proposition is baffling to me. Can you explain more about what the agency of change would be?

Yes, that's exactly it. Historical influences, along with countless environmental factors, shape us through brain plasticity, leading us to learn, remember, and act in ways that seem individual but are deeply influenced by external events. When we remember or learn something, it's not simply a mental shift—it’s a physical one. Neuronal networks are rewired: axon terminals grow or retract (in the case of long-term memory), synapses become stronger or weaker, and neurotransmitter release may be temporarily boosted for short-term memory. These are real, permanent changes, set off by interactions with our surroundings, and they define how we think, feel, and make decisions.

So, yes, the causes of change lie outside the individual. Shifts in wealth distribution, social norms, or systems of governance aren’t simply “freely chosen” in the way we might imagine; they’re responses to pressures, events, and structures that mold collective behavior.

Does this explanation get closer to addressing what you find baffling? If not, can you specify what remains unclear?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Does this explanation get closer to addressing what you find baffling? If not, can you specify what remains unclear?

It explains I think your peculiar idées fixes that — excuse the word play! — determine your conclusive views.

I’d suggest that your proposition is absurd on the face since, clearly, people can and do make choices.

I think you confuse a verbal and semantic strategy (involving reductionist predicates) with one that you regard (self-aggrandizingly) as mathematically and logically determined.

Have I clarified sufficiently my opposition?

[BigMike]

Alright, let’s dig into this a bit more, especially on the nature of choice. I get that it seems absurd to say that people don’t really “make choices” in the way we typically understand it. But here’s where the science comes in—consider the Libet experiments. These studies showed that our brains initiate actions before we’re consciously aware of deciding to act. In other words, the brain has already “decided” a fraction of a second before we experience the sensation of making a choice. This suggests that what we interpret as a free choice is actually the result of unconscious processes, shaped by previous experiences, environment, and countless other influences we don’t directly control.

This isn’t just a verbal strategy or some reductive wordplay—it’s rooted in physical processes that underlie our perception of choice. Add to this brain plasticity, where external events literally reshape our neural networks, influencing everything from decision-making to memory formation. When we learn or remember, structural changes happen in our brains: new axon terminals grow for long-term memories, synapses strengthen or weaken, and neurotransmitters fluctuate in short-term memory processes. All of these changes are responses to external factors, not products of some independent “free will.”

So when I talk about societal change being driven by external forces, I’m not dismissing human experience but explaining it in terms of the science of how our brains operate. Does this help clarify, or is there still a point that feels unresolved?

[Alexis Jacobi]

These studies showed that our brains initiate actions before we’re consciously aware of deciding to act. In other words, the brain has already “decided” a fraction of a second before we experience the sensation of making a choice. This suggests that what we interpret as a free choice is actually the result of unconscious processes, shaped by previous experiences, environment, and countless other influences we don’t directly control.

It is I think unquestionable that in some instances an unconscious impulse influences a decision made. But this is not the case when deliberate and reasoned thought, which also weighs moral, ethical and value-based factors, arrives at a choice or decision.

In the example you have chosen — the intrusuion perhaps of un- or semi-conscious desire — a self-conscious person, aware of that unconscious leaning, can opt to act against it.

Therefore, this points to “agency” of an individual will and personality.

My perspective is that it is just that — self-consciousness and intellectual awareness — that can be, should be, cultivated. This does not negate the realness of unconscious desire in any sense, but it does I think indicate that men and Man have access to “choice” that other creatures, in a sheerly determined (natural) world, do not have.

And since I do not subscribe to the atheist’s platform, and view the metaphysical realm as I do, I cannot go along with the larger predicate in your system of thought.

[Alexiev]

..

The chess player may have unconscious brain activity that influences his choice of moves. So what? To claim his E4 opening is not a "choice" is silly. Reductionist nonsense like this explains nothing and defies common sense. Yet, to some people it seems scientific. It's as if people think that reality can exist only if we can add, divide and measure it.

Walt Whitman chips in:

When I heard the learn’d astronomer,
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me,
When I was shown the charts and diagrams, to add, divide, and measure them,
When I sitting heard the astronomer where he lectured with much applause in the lecture-room,
How soon unaccountable I became tired and sick,
Till rising and gliding out I wander’d off by myself,
In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
Look’d up in perfect silence at the stars.

[BigMike]

I see where you're coming from. It feels intuitive to believe that when we’re making deliberate, reasoned choices—especially those with moral, ethical, or value-based weight—we’re exercising true agency, rising above unconscious impulses. But the science complicates this intuition. Even in cases of careful deliberation, the brain is working with a network of influences rooted in prior experiences, environmental conditioning, and innate predispositions—all of which shape and guide our decisions, often without our conscious awareness.

Libet’s experiments are just one piece of the puzzle. They demonstrated a kind of “lag” between brain activity and conscious awareness, suggesting that our sense of making a choice could be more of an after-the-fact experience. But beyond that, there’s also a growing body of research indicating that complex, reasoned decisions—even ones that feel free—are influenced by prior brain states and external factors that predate our awareness of them.

Now, I respect your view that self-consciousness and intellectual awareness provide a form of agency unique to humans. But here’s the question: if this sense of agency is shaped by countless pre-existing factors, is it really “free”? If we’re acting in alignment with our values, but those values are products of our experiences, conditioning, and perhaps even our neurobiology, then isn’t our “choice” still bound to those influences?

I understand that a metaphysical perspective might see this differently, but within a scientific framework, this agency remains part of a larger chain of cause and effect. Does that clarify where I’m coming from, or is there still a missing piece for you?

[BigMike]

To take this further, Alexis, let’s consider the fundamental interactions at play here. In the physical universe, everything operates within four fundamental forces: gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force. These forces govern every interaction and every change in the physical world. So if we’re talking about agency or “will” as something that’s nonphysical, we face a problem: it’s physically impossible for something outside these fundamental interactions to “push atoms around” in our brains or bodies.

For a nonphysical entity—say, a soul, or even free will itself—to influence physical matter, it would need to act within one of these four interactions. But that would mean the nonphysical suddenly has measurable, testable effects in the physical world, which science has yet to observe. Essentially, if free will were a genuine force, science would have detected its influence by now.

This is an indisputable point in physics: without a direct mechanism for interaction through one of these forces, the nonphysical simply cannot alter physical states. So, when we feel as though we’re making a free choice, what we’re really experiencing is the outcome of complex processes within our physical brains, all of which are bound by these fundamental laws of nature. This isn’t just a philosophical stance; it’s a hard, scientific reality that any alternative explanation would have to account for.

Does this line of reasoning resonate with you, or is there still something in the nature of agency that feels unresolved here?

[Alexis Jacobi]

But here’s the question: if this sense of agency is shaped by countless pre-existing factors, is it really “free”?

That is why I say — an improvised resolution of an inharmonious chord — that yes, we definitely exist within determined circumstances and are in that sense unfree.

Our ruination is thus described. That into which we have fallen. (Metaphor and allusion).

But that we do have access to a cubic centimeter of free volition — if we can realize it.

Naturally, my sense of what is ‘divine’ (metaphysical and ‘supernatural’, i.e. unconstrained by our condition), is the hinge in my philosophy on which I lay stress. But that “conceptual pathway” is closed to you by the force of your atheistic commitments.

That is fine of course — your choice or simply a conceptual point that likely will not change.

But there is a larger conversation and it has to do with religiousness, or spirituality, in both a vulgar and an elevated sense, and its function and influence in our present. It is a sticky, difficult and nuance-requiring topic.