If you are/were a conservative Christian, how do/did you cope with the concept of eternal damnation?

[southernhybrid]

I apologize for even bringing up freewill in this discussion, remez, but I still don't believe that we have freewill. It can't even be adequately defined. We do make choices but they are determined by our environmental and genetic influences. I understand that a lot of people don't understand that. I get that. It can be difficult to accept that the things we do have been predetermined by outside influences. That doesn't mean that new influences can't enter into the picture and help us make different decisions. If you're really interested in the topic, read some books on why freewill is a nonsensical concept. If you're not interested, that's fine. Most people live their lives without ever giving a thought as to why they are the way they are. No big deal. It's just something that has interested me. We are all as different as the myriad of things that have influenced us to be who we are. ( couldn't help myself )

 

[remez]

What I said that I don't believe, is that how I talk must necessarily match what I believe. I know it's an atypical stance but that's what you get if you choose to read my posts. I'm anti-substantialist and don't see language as representational. Language is more useful if we keep it simple, but increasingly less useful when it's increasingly abstracted from phenomenal experience. And then especially silly when a person flies off into otherworldly realms of confabulation. This is why I've never had a "meeting of minds" with platonist or catholic christian posters I've talked with. Because of course my views can't go over well with metaphysicians that need words to be just so to build (or "reason") their castles in the air.

Parsed……

What I said that I don't believe, is that how I talk must necessarily match what I believe. I know it's an atypical stance........

Atypical?
Are you kidding me?
…..you don’t believe that how you talk/post, must match what you are reasoning. Seriously?

Try to understand….If what you post does not represent your reasoning then how is anyone engaged with you to understand your reasoning? Are we supposed to guess what you are reasoning when you post? That would be like playing cards with a child who has made up arbitrary rules to always win.

What I said that I don't believe, is that how I talk must necessarily match what I believe. I know it's an atypical stance but that's what you get if you choose to read my posts. I'm anti-substantialist and don't see language as representational.

Then why are you posting on a message/language board designed to discuss reasoning, if you can’t post what you are reasoning?

And before you go here….that you didn’t mean that, but you meant that language can’t explain what you are reasoning….. that won’t work either, as I expressed several posts ago. That would only indicate that your reasoning is too deluded to be expressed or you are just simply inarticulate.

Language is more useful if we keep it simple, but increasingly less useful when it's increasingly abstracted from phenomenal experience. And then especially silly when a person flies off into otherworldly realms of confabulation.

Let me keep this simple then. I did not choose the topic or directly invite you to engage me on this topic. So why are you inferring I’m silly and to blame for the topic plus your language limitations? If you can’t post your reasoning then stay out of it. Reasonably if you do engage then expect that you will be required to defend the reasoning that you freely posted.

This is why I've never had a "meeting of minds" with platonist or catholic christian posters I've talked with.

Well you can to add remez and the rest of the reasoning world to that list.

I have a different take as to why our minds don’t meet. As I told you before reasoning is the goal here and you can’t hang with it well enough to express yourself. Throw away your language-get-out-of-jail-free card and learn how represent what you are actually reasoning or stay out of it altogether.
Be advised should you engage me again, I will read your post as representative of what you are reasoning. And if you attempt to play your silly game of … your posts don’t match your reasoning…. I will expose it once more as farcical. Not even your fellow atheists could reasonably defend your approach.

Because of course my views can't go over well with metaphysicians that need words to be just so to build (or "reason") their castles in the air.

Childish cop out to say the most. I’m not the one running away, insulting straw men and blaming language for my inability to present my reasoning.

 

[remez]

I apologize for even bringing up freewill in this discussion, remez, but I still don't believe that we have freewill. It can't even be adequately defined. We do make choices but they are determined by our environmental and genetic influences. I understand that a lot of people don't understand that. I get that. It can be difficult to accept that the things we do have been predetermined by outside influences. That doesn't mean that new influences can't enter into the picture and help us make different decisions. If you're really interested in the topic, read some books on why freewill is a nonsensical concept. If you're not interested, that's fine. Most people live their lives without ever giving a thought as to why they are the way they are. No big deal. It's just something that has interested me. We are all as different as the myriad of things that have influenced us to be who we are. ( couldn't help myself )

parsed....

I apologize for even bringing up freewill in this discussion, remez, but I still don't believe that we have freewill. It can't even be adequately defined. We do make choices but they are determined by our environmental and genetic influences. I understand that a lot of people don't understand that. I get that. It can be difficult to accept that the things we do have been predetermined by outside influences.

That is a deluded position to hold but ok you can have it your way. But realize that renders all of your reasoning to be an illusion. Thus I give you this new answer to your OP using your perspective of illusion……there is no conflict. That is just your illusion.
Watch how it all plays out from here forward………………..

That doesn't mean that new influences can't enter into the picture and help us make different decisions.

That is just an illusion.

If you're really interested in the topic, read some books on why freewill is a nonsensical concept.

Why? The reasoning found there in would just be illusion. Apparently you also have the illusion that I have not done so.

Most people live their lives without ever giving a thought as to why they are the way they are.

It’s only an illusion that you think that.

It's just something that has interested me.

No your interests are only illusion. You had no choice.

We are all as different as the myriad of things that have influenced us to be who we are.

That is just your illusion.

( couldn't help myself )

Of course not. No one is to blame for anything. So illusion this…..next time you present anything here pretending to be reason, I will reasonably hold you to your view. That means I will immediately expose your position on freewill, choice and reason, thereby rendering your concern as nothing but illusion.

Happy molecular movements to you,
remez

 

[abaddon]

Parsed……

Atypical?
Are you kidding me?
…..you don’t believe that how you talk/post, must match what you are reasoning. Seriously?

No. That's not what was said at all.

I said how everyone, including you, speaks/writes differently from how reality is. "Social convention" doesn't just mean 'we all do it to communicate'. It means there's a mismatch between our words and reality no matter what, yet it kinda works anyway.

Your parsing doesn't work, idiot. The bit you're quoting here connects to the non-representalism I mentioned later. So the slicing and dicing you do confuses you.

And you are far too black/white a thinker for me to be talking with. It's clear you need things to be within what you're used to to "get it".

Just FYI, the reason most people don't engage you is not because you're brilliant. You're not. It's because you launch an avalanche of incomprehension if they make the mistake of responding to you, and by now most people know that. Everyone's faced with the choice: "Ignore him now and avoid the flood of sophistic shit, or ignore him later after it's clear it'll never end".

The quoted bit is as much as I wanted to be bothered with it just now... TL;DR. Maybe later. I was working on a response to your story about God, to get back to a simpler topic for you. If I post it.

 

[abaddon]

A bit more for you.

And before you go here….that you didn’t mean that, but you meant that language can’t explain what you are reasoning...

No.

Here's the general point again: Pointing out sentence structures to say "self-contradiction" doesn't prove the speaker's wrong.

Here's an example to help give a frame of reference. In discussions of the self, some say "I am a self, it's me who's saying this!" Others say "There is no self. I have a sense of self, but it's really a number of processes". The believers in a unitary self will then say "Look! You said 'I'! So you're being self-contradictory!"

No matter who's right or wrong about the nature of self, that isn't skilled logic.

That's the mistake I see you making in your exchange with southernhybrid. It's mistaking an informally presented sentence as if it were a premise in a more or less formal argument, when it's conversational english.

 

[remez]

Addresses both posts 64 and 65

I’m a math guy. Reasoning and logic govern my epistemology. Reasoning and logic help govern my Theism as well. So yes I’m black and white and do not hide from that at all. So to address your complaining about that and my parsing. I did not take your statement out of context. That is why I left the entirety of the quote I was responding to above followed by the parsing. I learned it from a smart atheist, on this board, years ago. I saw the entirety of your post as an argument for your “new” position. (“new” reasoned below) I parsed the points to address what I saw as the premises of your “new” argument. That is the way logic works. To defeat an argument you show where the premises are less plausible than their alternatives and/or show that the logic does not flow from the premises to the conclusion and that no logical fallacy was engineered into the logic. Thus I do not parse the post until I read the whole post. So if people (particularly relativists) want to avoid logic then avoid me.

That is not to say that I’m always right. I’ve had a few humbling experiences here and learned from them. The major one (much to your bemoan) was to be very meticulous and precise with the logic. The black and white…logic…was a learned behavior mostly honed and learned here from you guys forcing it upon me. Which is what a relativist might find completely annoying. I’m not sorry for that.

Now back to your last post. Well it was your last post when I wrote this. Anyway post 64.

I said how everyone including you speaks differently from how reality is. "Social convention" doesn't just mean "we all do it to communicate". It means there's a mismatch between our words and reality no matter what, yet it kinda works anyway.

That’s a given we all deal with that. You said that in your “old” argument” back in post 44. And I directly addressed it in post 49. I did not deny your point but directly challenged your using that as a cop out to assert that my case against …….southernhybrid’s assertion of the non-existence freewill, choice and reason…. fails. Seriously reread post 49. Thus I had all that in my context when I addressed this in post 62……..

What I said that I don't believe, is that how I talk must necessarily match what I believe. I know it's an atypical stance........

Read what YOU said there carefully. I did NOT read that as you repeating yourself from the post 44, because I addressed it in 49. Thus I thought that issue concluded by silent concession.

So I read that as you separately and more severely presenting a “new” argument that your language didn’t have to match your reasoning let alone reality from earlier. Hence my reply. I’m glad to see that your position is not that severe. There actually was no “new” argument. You weren’t very clear. But I can understand the confusion because the side issue of “an attenuated free will” side tracked us there for a moment and we’ve been discussing this over several posts.

But……… since you are simply reasserting the same error in 44 then my reply to that still stands unaddressed in 49. Thus you still have not made your case that my reasoning against southerhybrid was in error.


Hold on.


As I went to post the above I noticed you presented a new post……….

No.

Here's the general point again: Pointing out sentence structures to say "self-contradiction" doesn't prove the speaker's wrong.

Here's an example to help give a frame of reference. In discussions of the self, some say "I am a self, it's me who's saying this!" Others say "There is no self. I have a sense of self, but it's really a number of processes". The believers in a unitary self will then say "Look! You said 'I'! So you're being self-contradictory!"

No matter who's right or wrong about the nature of self, that isn't skilled logic.

That's the mistake I see you making in your exchange with southernhybrid. It's mistaking an informally presented sentence as if it were a premise in a more or less formal argument, when it's conversational english.

No

You are just reasserting what you asserted in 44. I addressed this in post 49. What you just said above does not reflect what I said there. So please reread post 49. Specifically my contention that I was not attacking the sentence structure. I was attacking the reason the sentence structure was conveying. How else do I counter her reasoning? To freely choose to reason that freewill, choice and reason don’t exist is completely self-defeating. You’re using all three to assert that they don’t exist. It has nothing to do with the sentence structure.

Think about this ....aren't you attacking my reasoning through my sentences?

 

[abaddon]

I was attacking the reason the sentence structure was conveying. How else do I counter her reasoning? To freely choose to reason that freewill, choice and reason don’t exist is completely self-defeating. You’re using all three to assert that they don’t exist. It has nothing to do with the sentence structure.

Think about this ....aren't you attacking my reasoning through my sentences?

But I don't assert free will, choice and reasoning don't exist. I've said my argument plainly enough. Language won't determine what's real. Logic doesn't determine what's real. Reason has its limits.

What does that leave then, to counter her reasoning? Empirical studies would help a lot! (Or is empiricism self-defeating too?) That doesn't leave discussing it out, among people who want to engage that old philosophical blah-blah about freewill.

Your logic is black and white thinking, you say. That's not good! But understandable for someone that wants simple answers (or "reasonably plausible" ones, in your preferred phrase) and, more, to derive them from logic with few references to empirical reality.

Your posts here, and in general, are a matter of setting up false dilemmas, which relates closely to black-white thinking. 'It's this or that so which is it?' is the dilemma you like to keep setting up in your arguments. 'Let's ignore empiricism and decide how reality is with words, so don't doubt the accuracy of language or you're against reason itself'. 'Lacking another "plausible" explanation then which of these "theism" words best explains existence?' 'If you have a choice of God's love or hell, it's YOUR choice, so which is it?'

Yes, I'm attacking through your sentences. That you think that's inconsistent with my stance is a symptom of the deeply flawed either-or thinking: 'either language is accurate or we can't use it to reason with'; 'either reason will solve this problem or reason's no good'.

PS. My stance on freewill: I do see saying "I have no choice" but then talking about apparent choices as contradictory. All the same, I don't know the reality of freewill/determinism. I'm inclined to say it's "somewhere in the middle". But I'm going to leave it to studies. And, no, I won't believe the studies just cuz "science says"... Belief isn't important to me, I can leave it an unanswered question forever.

PSS: Freewill doesn't answer the problem of hell. How that scenario of having to accept god's love, or choose hell instead, even arises at all (in anyone's imagination) is not answered by interjecting a reason (that God doesn't force people to love him) into that bizarre, ungrounded story.

 

[Lion IRC]

"The fall, Irenaeus would say, attenuated free will, although it did not obliterate it." (From here).

Even if the word "attenuated" confused anyone it was still clear in context I meant there's some degree of free will.

Do our pair of Dunning-Kruger exhibits get it now?

You don't need to qualify the words "free" and "will".
Will, intent, motive, deliberation, volition...these don't come in sizes small medium or large.

It either is or it isn't a person's choice.
If it isn't then it's not intentional. And hell isn't populated with people who 'accidentally' drove their truck into a crowd of innocent bystanders. Nor people whom God knows honestly intended to do 'good'. Thus, we need not fear God might punish a child who was brainwashed or coerced to involuntarily do evil.

 

[bilby]

"The fall, Irenaeus would say, attenuated free will, although it did not obliterate it." (From here).

Even if the word "attenuated" confused anyone it was still clear in context I meant there's some degree of free will.

Do our pair of Dunning-Kruger exhibits get it now?

You don't need to qualify the words "free" and "will".
Will, intent, motive, deliberation, volition...these don't come in sizes small medium or large.

It either is or it isn't a person's choice.
If it isn't then it's not intentional. And hell isn't populated with people who 'accidentally' drove their truck into a crowd of innocent bystanders. Nor people whom God knows honestly intended to do 'good'. Thus, we need not fear God might punish a child who was brainwashed or coerced to involuntarily do evil.

There's no evidence that either hell or god are anything other than pure fiction. Thus we need not fear either. Made up things can be scary, but it's not rational to live your life as though your irrational fears of the fictional were justified.

 

[remez]

I was attacking the reason the sentence structure was conveying. How else do I counter her reasoning? To freely choose to reason that freewill, choice and reason don’t exist is completely self-defeating. You’re using all three to assert that they don’t exist. It has nothing to do with the sentence structure.

Think about this ....aren't you attacking my reasoning through my sentences?

But I don't assert free will, choice and reasoning don't exist. I've said my argument plainly enough. Language won't determine what's real. Logic doesn't determine what's real. Reason has its limits.

What does that leave then, to counter her reasoning? Empirical studies would help a lot! (Or is empiricism self-defeating too?) That doesn't leave discussing it out, among people who want to engage that old philosophical blah-blah about freewill.

Your logic is black and white thinking, you say. That's not good! But understandable for someone that wants simple answers (or "reasonably plausible" ones, in your preferred phrase) and, more, to derive them from logic with few references to empirical reality.

Your posts here, and in general, are a matter of setting up false dilemmas, which relates closely to black-white thinking. 'It's this or that so which is it?' is the dilemma you like to keep setting up in your arguments. 'Let's ignore empiricism and decide how reality is with words, so don't doubt the accuracy of language or you're against reason itself'. 'Lacking another "plausible" explanation then which of these "theism" words best explains existence?' 'If you have a choice of God's love or hell, it's YOUR choice, so which is it?'

Yes, I'm attacking through your sentences. That you think that's inconsistent with my stance is a symptom of the deeply flawed either-or thinking: 'either language is accurate or we can't use it to reason with'; 'either reason will solve this problem or reason's no good'.

PS. My stance on freewill: I do see saying "I have no choice" but then talking about apparent choices as contradictory. All the same, I don't know the reality of freewill/determinism. I'm inclined to say it's "somewhere in the middle". But I'm going to leave it to studies. And, no, I won't believe the studies just cuz "science says"... Belief isn't important to me, I can leave it an unanswered question forever.

PSS: Freewill doesn't answer the problem of hell. How that scenario of having to accept god's love, or choose hell instead, even arises at all (in anyone's imagination) is not answered by interjecting a reason (that God doesn't force people to love him) into that bizarre, ungrounded story.

unparsed....

don't mix it up.

And again I agree with you on all that. You really seem to be missing my point. You can't extend this part ...."Language won't determine what's real." ....as you were to infer that I can't address her reasoning because her words don't match reality. That is a cop out. If that is the core of your blah blah bad philosophy you should heed it and not address my reasoning through my words.

Just to be clear here are the B+W laws of logic....
The law of identity: P is P.
The law of noncontradiction: P is not non-P.
The law of the excluded middle: Either P or non-P.

So please your inference that I see ALL reasoning as the Laws of logic lacks empirical evidence. You, yourself in your very next sentence referenced my plausibility of premises. Plausibility is not black and white. Examine again how black and white you are in your first two sentences of that quote. Again I asserted that I used the laws of logic to govern my reasoning, that does not extend to all my reasoning is black and white, aka fallacy of composition.

Lets examine the context of your contention. The history thus far. I provided freewill as part of the answer to southernhybid's thread question. She freely choose to counter with freewill is an illusion. I reasonably challenged her reasoning on that. Basically I was showing her that to freely choose to reason that freewill, choice and reason do not exist is self-defeating. The black and white nature of The law of the excluded middle was too harsh for you. You did not like that. Even though you affirm the existence of freewill, you had to find some way to defend southernhybrid's reasoning by finding error with my language. Which btw is breaking your own blah blah bad philosophy. Here is how you attempted to do that......

You stated the common language does not necessarily match reality. That I acknowledge. But you did not stop there.........oh no you.......then extended that notion to.... I was wrong for challenging her sentences with The law of the excluded middle(the black and white part you're always bemoaning)because I should know her language did not match her reality. Your blah blah bad philosophical defense is a categorical error as I pointed out several times. I was not attacking her language I was attacking her reasoning.

Upon realizing your fallacy (I hope), you dug the hole deeper. You are now making the attempt to save face with this new self-defeating philosophy..... philosophy blah blah bla...... remez you can't make everything black and white how about some empirical evidence.

Do you realize that when it comes to physical evidence you can't get any more black and white then empirical evidence? The request is yet another categorical fallacy. I'll let you figure it out for yourself this time........You first .....Give me some empirical evidence that my reasoning by The law of the excluded middle. And we need to play by your blah blah bad philosophy this time........ my language here cannot be used as empirical evidence for it may not match reality. Good luck.

The context was a true dilemma ...Freewill, choice and reason exist or they do not. That is The law of the excluded middle. Just because a false dilemma could occur does not mean I presented one. Again provide some empirical evidence for your baseless LIE.

again further...............

False accusation. I certainly would have examined any empirical evidence you or she had for your case. Neither of you presented anything but reasoning with words. Thus by your blah blah bad philosophy you're against empirical evidence.
So now give me..............some empirical evidence that I'm ignoring empirical evidence.

The inconsistency I charged you with has absolutely nothing to do with The law of the excluded middle. You are conflating consistency and The law of the excluded middle. Another overt straw man and possible categorical fallacy. Consistently speaking.... If by your blah blah bad philosophy I'm an idiot for addressing her reasoning through her represented words then your're a hypocritical idiot for doing the same with me.

Great, I have no issue that at all. Stay on they bench. But if you get into the game then be logically prepared to play.

Another straw man fallacy. I did not say freewill answered the question.



the parsed version in a bit for clarification.

 

[Juma]

Ponder this: nobody has ever observed libertarian free will. (That you think that you have LFW will is not an observation of LFW, just a belief).

Your stated BELIEF about this is conflicted at several different levels.

Ponder this. I can play the same game. Your assertion is just a belief, which you seem to infer nullifies its own existence. Nice going.

Also ponder this: Should I grant you that my position was just a belief. That alone does not render it non-existent. Reason would have to determine that. Which leads to this……(That you think that you have LFW will is not an observation of LFW, just a belief) is an inaccurate belief of my position. You are equivocating. It should be….. That I reason that I have LFW is not an observation of LFW, it’s a reason based on observation. Thus it is not just simply a belief without evidence as you infer through your equivocations.

Further.

Why should we accept your belief that observation is the solitary criterion for determining existence?

What observable evidence do you have for your belief?

Further.

“nobody has observed LFW.” Well does love exist? Have you observed it?

Ponder this before you answer:

If you say love exists and then attempt to provide observations, you would really be only providing reasons based upon your observations, to which I could easily take the same path for LFW. And you at the same time, would also be nullifying your belief that only observation determines existence. That’s the problem with materialist belief.

If you say love does not exist then you step well beyond reason, and I’ll freely choose to let you go.

with love,
remez

how do you define love? the feeling? the sexual act? behavior of humans? in each case you can easily say: hell yes! we observe!

but: think of what LFW actually need to be observed: that you can behave otherwise in EXACTLY the same situation.

that cannot be observed.

 

[abaddon]

<edited out the massive babbling>

the parsed version in a bit for clarification.

tl;dr

 

[remez]

But I don't assert free will, choice and reasoning don't exist.

I know. You lost the context again. WE were not talking about you.

I've said my argument plainly enough. Language won't determine what's real. Logic doesn't determine what's real. Reason has its limits.

And again I agree with you on all that. You really seem to be missing my point. You can't extend this part ...."Language won't determine what's real." ....as you were to infer that I can't address her reasoning because her words don't match reality. That is a cop out. If that is the core of your blah blah bad philosophy you should heed it and not address my reasoning through my words.

Your logic is black and white thinking, you say. That's not good! But understandable for someone that wants simple answers (or "reasonably plausible" ones, in your preferred phrase) and, more, to derive them from logic with few references to empirical reality.

Just to be clear here are the B+W laws of logic....
The law of identity: P is P.
The law of noncontradiction: P is not non-P.
The law of the excluded middle: Either P or non-P.


So please your inference that I see ALL reasoning as the Laws of logic lacks empirical evidence. You, yourself in your very next sentence referenced my plausibility of premises. Plausibility is not black and white. Examine again how black and white you are in your first two sentences of that quote. Again I asserted that I used the laws of logic to govern my reasoning, that does not extend to all my reasoning is black and white, aka fallacy of composition.


Lets examine the context of your contention. The history thus far. I provided freewill as part of the answer to southernhybid's thread question. She freely choose to counter with freewill is an illusion. I reasonably challenged her reasoning on that. Basically I was showing her that to freely choose to reason that freewill, choice and reason do not exist is self-defeating. The black and white nature of The law of the excluded middle was too harsh for you. You did not like that. Even though you affirm the existence of freewill, you had to find some way to defend southernhybrid's reasoning by finding error with my language. Which btw is breaking your own blah blah bad philosophy. Here is how you attempted to do that......


You stated the common language does not necessarily match reality. That I acknowledge. But you did not stop there.........oh no you.......then extended that notion to.... I was wrong for challenging her sentences with The law of the excluded middle(the black and white part you're always bemoaning)because I should know her language did not match her reality. Your blah blah bad philosophical defense is a categorical error as I pointed out several times. I was not attacking her language I was attacking her reasoning.

Upon realizing your fallacy (I hope), you dug the hole deeper. You are now making the attempt to save face with this new self-defeating philosophy..... philosophy blah blah bla...... remez you can't make everything black and white how about some empirical evidence.

Do you realize that when it comes to physical evidence you can't get any more black and white then empirical evidence? The request is yet another categorical fallacy. I'll let you figure it out for yourself this time........You first .....Give me some empirical evidence that my reasoning by The law of the excluded middle. And we need to play by your blah blah bad philosophy this time........ my language here cannot be used as empirical evidence for it may not match reality. Good luck.

Your posts here, and in general, are a matter of setting up false dilemmas, which relates closely to black-white thinking. 'It's this or that so which is it?' is the dilemma you like to keep setting up in your arguments.

The context was a true dilemma ...Freewill, choice and reason exist or they do not. That is The law of the excluded middle. Just because a false dilemma could occur does not mean I presented one. Again provide some empirical evidence for your baseless LIE.

again further...............

Your posts here, and in general, are a matter of setting up false dilemmas, which relates closely to black-white thinking. 'It's this or that so which is it?' is the dilemma you like to keep setting up in your arguments. 'Let's ignore empiricism and decide how reality is with words, so don't doubt the accuracy of language or you're against reason itself'. 'Lacking another "plausible" explanation then which of these "theism" words best explains existence?' 'If you have a choice of God's love or hell, it's YOUR choice, so which is it?'

False accusation. I certainly would have examined any empirical evidence you or she had for your case. Neither of you presented anything but reasoning with words. Thus by your blah blah bad philosophy you're against empirical evidence.
So now give me..............some empirical evidence that I'm ignoring empirical evidence.

Yes, I'm attacking through your sentences. That you think that's inconsistent with my stance is a symptom of the deeply flawed either-or thinking: 'either language is accurate or we can't use it to reason with'; 'either reason will solve this problem or reason's no good'.

The inconsistency I charged you with has absolutely nothing to do with The law of the excluded middle. You are conflating consistency and The law of the excluded middle. Another overt straw man and possible categorical fallacy. Consistently speaking.... If by your blah blah bad philosophy I'm an idiot for addressing her reasoning through her represented words then your're a hypocritical idiot for doing the same with me.

PS. My stance on freewill: I do see saying "I have no choice" but then talking about apparent choices as contradictory. All the same, I don't know the reality of freewill/determinism. I'm inclined to say it's "somewhere in the middle". But I'm going to leave it to studies. And, no, I won't believe the studies just cuz "science says"... Belief isn't important to me, I can leave it an unanswered question forever.

Great, I have no issue that at all. Stay on they bench. But if you get into the game then be logically prepared to play.

PSS: Freewill doesn't answer the problem of hell. How that scenario of having to accept god's love, or choose hell instead, even arises at all (in anyone's imagination) is not answered by interjecting a reason (that God doesn't force people to love him) into that bizarre, ungrounded story.

Another straw man fallacy. I did not say freewill answered the question.

tl;dr

Then stay on the bench.