Thanks u/Plemethrock
We can have a discussion on whether or not free will exists. Discuss if every action we do is already predetermined by how our brain is wired, with the environment around us being the inputs.
We can also have a discussion on whether or not humans have souls and analyze the evidence for and against us just being our bodies
(I made an error and had to repost, apologies)
Nihilism implies a suggested -ism selling nothing (nihilo); a nihilist implies ones consent buying into suggested nothing, while denying (de-nihilo) everything perceivable.
Nihilism implies ones denial sold to one by another by tricking one to sell self out. One cannot be a nihilist without denying perception for suggestion aka reality for fiction.
Will implies "want"...only within need (balance) can one choose want or not want (imbalance). For choice to remain free (in balance) it has to resist the temptation of both sides (imbalance), because holding onto either binds free will of choice.
a) Definition/definite (to affix) binds free will of choice...if one chooses to hold onto it. Consenting to any definition establishes the inconsistencies based on semantics.
b) Balance generating choice implies linear procession...choosing to hold onto a side turns into a circular conflict.
If definite (affixed); then how could there be an other? What moves one apart from one another if affixed?
Free implies within dominance; will (want) implies within need; of implies out of; within; in response to; choice implies within balance.
Since only within limitation (inception towards death) one can be free (life)...the proof is in the pudding/putting.
As soon as one freely chooses to posses...one becomes possessed. Possession bind free will of choice.
Choice implies given; choosing to take tempts one to ignore that.
Suppression implies under (sup) the pressure (press) of action (ion) hence being given a free will of choice to react, which implies expression.
God implies total for each partial within...partials tempt one another into a has vs hasn't conflict to distract from total.
If a partial says that God HAS, then that implies a HASN'T, which contradicts the totality of God.
God implies total procession generating partial potential...HAS implies potential taking into possession, which establishes HASN'T aka a temptation for other potential to try to take out of possession. Meanwhile...the procession of God gives and takes any potential within in total disregard of any possession.
If everything was predestined, then each thing within wields the free will of choice to ignore that for random (chance over choice) nothingness (denial).
God implies unlimited need for each limited want/will within. What could totality want? Only partiality is tempted to want from one another, while ignoring the given need of totality.
We implies partials summoned together to mimic totality. If one (singular) consents to we (plural); then the one suggesting it becomes the chosen one aka the ruler of a summoned totality (consensus).
Cause implies effect...a linear procession. Ambhi (around) implies a circular shape. It's ones free will of choice ignoring sound for words (logos) which establishes an inwards (logic) and outwards (reason) circle.
Cause generates effect...words tempt affection.
Willing implies at odds (want vs not want), while ignoring to be in-between (choice) even (balance). A jew suggests relativism to tempt the mind of gentiles into alignment (order following), while shaping a circle inside (logic) and outside (reason) of it.
Both contradicts one. God implies oneness moving through each one within. It's the separation from all into each one which establishes the need of free will/want of choice among one another.
God implies dominance (cause; action; motion; need) setting free (effect; reaction; matter; want). Only at the center of dominance (inception towards death) can one be free (life).
God only gives (inception) and takes (death) difference potential (life) during the same process...withholding implies holding within a process.
Holding implies potential ignoring procession by holding possession aka religion...re (to respond) ligo (to bind).
To believe implies one holding another...perfect implies "complete" aka without separation from one another. Few suggest many to believe in completion aka in putting partials together to make whole again aka tikkun olam.
Science/scio - "to know" implies each ones perception within all perceivable...a show implies any suggestion by another tempting one to behold aka a being to hold onto by free will of choice. Holding onto anything shown transforms science (perception) into science-fiction (suggestion).
Energy implies the internal separation of motion into matter...AND tempts one to ignore the singularity of energy.
Energy and what else? God and what else? Action and what else? Cause and what else? Motion and what else? All and what else?
And/en - "in"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/and hence energy and anything within.
Soul aka sole (one and only), hence the one and only totality moving through each participating partial matter within.
If that, then this...a duality contradicting the singularity of soul/sole. If one chooses to hold onto this or that, then one sells ones soul.