#also I'm very inconsistent with who I think proposed or asked for the other's hand in marriage first xD

[owlyflufff]

Keiji always knew Koutaoru has a gentle touch.

He isn't foreign to the callouses and marks that etched along his partner's fingers. His high school years informed him much that his star could send spike after spike relentlessly, the sound resonating throughout a gym, arena even if Bokuto was eager enough. There on the sidelines he'd look over to see Bokuto sending in the most obnoxious high five, wishing the unfortunate soul that would be on the receiving end of Bokuto's "pat" to the back a get well soon and seen how enthusiastic Bokuto's every movements have been over the years he's known him.

However, Keiji knows just how gentle Koutarou's touch had always been.

For those very same hands were the ones that welcomed him warmly when he first joined Fukurodani's volleyball team. Those same eager movements so easily passed and shared food to him from his bento box. Such hands offered him kindness Keiji didn't think he should hold when his thoughts started to overrun him.

They wrapped bandages around his fingers from careless mistakes and hasty injuries, they hugged his own fingers tight and offered warmth when Akaashi's own fingers were surrounded in cold. Such movements held him close when he sobbed, fingers interlaced as the curtains closed on their last match and they offered their goodbye to the court.

If Keiji can trace along his skin, he could trace the fondest memory of Bokuto quietly reaching for his hands, looking him in the eyes and telling him the most earnest words with the stars being their only witness, an earnest I love you.

By then Koutarou's touch had only grown more gentle, stolen touches underneath the table during group dinners, merely sitting side by side a bench or finding comfort in sharing a bed and finding rest in each other's presence.

Keiji always knew Koutaoru has a gentle touch.

And as he watched from the distance, there is something to be said about how small and fragile a young child's hand could be as it reached out for Koutarou's own. The little kid jumped and hollered, bouncing as it requested for Koutarou to teach him how to spike once more. If anything Koutarou was surrounded by numerous children, all running and prodding to learn volleyball that their eagerness almost had Koutarou being swept up in their tidal wave of unbridled energy.

A reflection of who Koutarou once was, a reflection of who Koutarou still is regardless of all the years that have passed.

It makes Keiji laugh.

It makes Keiji smile.

It makes Keiji cry, almost.

He watches on as Koutarou eagerly but carefully guides those children, positioning their arms and rubbing their heads over a successful spike, hands so full of care and love that Keiji could never feel so deserving of it even now.

Keiji always knew Koutarou has a gentle touch, and in turn he wants to offer all those in kind. Offer his support, his care, his love really to the man that had left him speechless since day one. To the man who still leaves him speechless with all the children he's surrounded by.

And as Keiji stands up from the bleachers and makes his way over to Koutarou and the kids, there's he would offer Koutarou his own gentle touch, with one hand holding Koutarou's own and the other holding a ring from behind with the promise of forever.

[sagebodisattva]

God, Free Will and Determinism

Determinism has a strong presence in theology, which is, I'm sure, much to the dismay to the adherents of scientific determinism. Theological determinism is a form of determinism which states that all events that happen are pre-ordained, or predestined to happen, by a god, or that they are destined to occur given god's omniscience. Scientific determinism isn't all that different; it just replaces the words omnipotent god with the words natural force. So the sentence becomes: Scientific determinism is a form of determinism which states that all events that happen are pre-ordained, or predestined to happen, by a natural force, or that they are destined to occur given the power of the natural force. God, or a natural force. hmmm. Are not these concepts both equally vague and amorphous? It poses a serious problem. And the fact that neither science or religion can disambiguate the natural force, or the supreme being, nor give evidence to the existence of any, doesn't help in the matter either. Theological determinism exists in a number of religions, including Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It is also supported by proponents of Classical pantheism such as the Stoics and Baruch Spinoza. So there is a rich history of investment in this concept. All of this investment into theological determinism, resting on an unfounded assumption about reality: that there is such a thing as a god.

So right out of the box, the basic concept of determinism already stinks of religion, before any secular implementations can even be applied, hence largely tarnishing most of determinism's potential positive utility by the mere association... and so, what about free will? Free will is alluded to occasionally in some of the scriptures, and often used as a buzz word in the proselytization rhetoric of the religious ilk, so isn't this indicative that free will plays some role in the narrative about god? Yeah, sure...but it's a weak association, as it doesn't even make sense in any etymological context. The only reason free will is entertained in theism is so that the religious ilk have an excuse to partake in their favorite pastime: judging and condemning people, which they do with so much pride and fervor, feeling righteous and dignified as they arrogantly assume the justification to impose an invasive guilt trip on you. But according to their own religions, they don't even have that right, as the fate of man is in god's hands alone, and, according to the scriptures, man is not saved due to the merit of his choices or actions, but saved only according to god's grace; which basically means god will save you according to his momentary mood or whim. That's the first reason why free will doesn't gel with religion. No matter how you might exercise your free will, none of it will curry you any favor with god. The second reason why free will doesn't gel with religion, is due to the fact that god's very existence destroys all possibility of free will. Because God is omniscient and omnipotent, everything that happens is, for all intents and purposes, already determined; for god knows everything in advance, before it happens, yet, despite this, theologians insist that somehow God has given us free will to choose how to act. Sound contradictory? Of course it does, because it is. Yet, no rational satisfactory explanation will ever be provided to account for this discrepancy. And it's no real surprise, as, if religion has shown us anything, it's that the only consistency in their doctrines are the blatant inconsistencies. Why did God supposedly give us free will then? Wouldn't it have been easier and nicer to just create mankind as inherently good? Well, theists maintain that God's purpose with mankind is to have eternal fellowship with those who truly love Him. Therefore, to create us as inherently good robots, without the potential for the opposite character, evil, would not allow for true love. For only love that comes from a free choice of the will is TRUE LOVE. Voluntary choice is the key - love isn't genuine if there's no other option. Well... Whatever kind of love is being referred to in this sick correspondence isn't anything resembling true love or free choice. At best, this is a selfishly driven illusion, contrived to validate God's ego.

First off, according to this narrative, we are just a creation, which basically means we are glorified string puppets, which makes our existence nothing more then a divine masturbation tool. If god is omnipotent, then there really is no free will, as he is already aware of everything that is going to happen, before it happens, so any choice that a string puppet may think it has, is just an illusion. Not to mention that the love that god is said to want so badly, a genuine love chosen voluntarily, isn't even genuine, nor is voluntary: as humans are not even genuinely existing independent units, as we are all but the byproducts of god's handiwork. It would be similar to a human being expecting genuine love chosen by free will from a programmed hologram or a machine. It ain't genuinely happening. We may program it to simulate such a chosen affection, but if we think that this programming represents any real authentic function, the only ones we are fooling is ourselves. And also, 'voluntary choice' is the key, you say? Sounds good in theory. So it's too bad that god doesn't extend the same courtesy to his creations, no? I don't remember voluntarily choosing to be thrust into existence by some mono phobic deity with borderline personality, simply because he has isolation issues.

Yeah. So, there is nothing chosen, voluntary, authentic or free willish about any of this. But, apparently, we are being asked to overlook these inconsistencies and are expected to just accept these insipid explanations at face value. The reasoning reminds me a lot of the rationale in a concept I like to refer to as "special determinism", which is a variety of determinism often heard spoken about in certain philosophical circles here on the internet, wherein everything is already predetermined, yet nevertheless, still affords an organism some type of a facsimile of a free will, that isn't really free will, but somehow enables the organism to be consequential in the equation of cause and effect by deciding to show up to go through the motions, which indirectly implies that there was some other kind of option in the first place, of which, flagrantly contradicts the basic tenants of general determinism. They will cry and scream that there is no contradiction, but there are major contradictions. If you truly understand determinism, and claim to speak for determinism, then words like decide, choose, and will should never even come out of your mouth, as any distinction of such an aspect would be, at best, illusory; and if illusory, there's no need to treat it as if it were any different then illusory. And saying, "But we still have to show up and go through motions", is bunkum; nonsense talk with no point, as any possible point that could be proposed will be inconsequential; as the context of "being effected to show up and go through the motions", couldn't have gone any other way, as it it is predetermined and predestined. Apparently, special determinism disagrees with this too. Another contradiction. Now claiming that the present moment is not yet written, and only becomes written AS it is being written, in the present. Does this not sound to be an exercise of free will? If it's not already determined and destined to be, and only becomes so in the moment it occurs, this is the basic description of free will, which maintains that the will is free to make new causes spontaneously, without being chained to one specific path by the oppression of previous endured effects. It's simple. Either you have an authentic choice, or you don't. If you do, then there is an element of a free will at play. If you don't, then any appearance or choice is illusion, in which case there's no point talking about it. Then they will say things like, there is such thing as a will, but it isn't free; or that it's just desire with a different label; also pointless gobbledygook. If we have a will, how isn't it free? Does it cost something to have a will? When was this paid? How was it paid? Or is this a reference to the lack of freedom that is inherent to the will? And what would this be based on, other then abstractions? This shouldn't be a complicated issue. But, I think the main reason why these special determinists are talking out of both sides of their mouths and want it both ways is, as is the case with theological determinism, marking yet another similarity, because they do so enjoy being authoritative, and don't want the implications of determinism to strip them of their favorite pastime: judging and condemning people, which they do with so much pride and fervor, feeling righteous and dignified as they arrogantly assume the justification to impose an invasive guilt trip on you. So I think we can understand the motives behind design of this position: It is derived from the desire to have a position that appears aligned to a very objective scientific methodology, yet still wants to leave room for all of the touchy feely subjective crap... and of course, still leave tons of room for all the blaming, guilt, castigation, vitriol, and various methods of personal attack, so loved by the fans of this type of dishonest trollish "philosophy"...

And even without all this emotion trying to pass itself off as rationality, it's still an ill conceived philosophy that, ironically, has some need to smear the idea of a free will onto religious ideology, (even though determinism is really the primary backbone of theology despite theology's wishful thinking promotion of free will), all the while making constant reference to agency. Special determinism maintains hard determinism, all the while espousing rhetoric laced with appeals to free will; while theological determinism maintains free will, all the while espousing rhetoric laced with appeals to hard determinism. So there's a lot of convolution and faulty reasoning at play here, in both special determinism and theological determinism. But why is this so? The issue here, is that both religion and special determinism want it both ways. They want to have their cakes and eat it too. They want the specter of some unknown all powerful force to be looming high over our heads, and claim that we are but the mere byproducts of such a force, and yet, somehow, assert that we still have some kind of loophole that allows us to be factors in some vague notion of a practical effectuation in the process. Most onlookers will focus on the similarities of these positions as they relate to the false misconception of free will, but this isn't the only thing they share in common. The most notable equivalence is that they both demand your subservience to a so called external factor. And this is not by accident, not by coincidence, nor is an implication that should be taken lightly. As I have said many many times: when you attribute power and the responsibility for your existence to an extrinsic factor, you strip yourself of all freedom and autonomy, hence casting yourself into mental slavery: just where they want you. So they don't mind if you believe in a fake notion of a will, or a misdirected notion of a will, as long as you never discover the truth of the actual will. For if you ever discovered the truth of the actual will, then you will be out of the reach of their influence, hence, not in a position for them to impose dominance over you. And that's the only thing that power hungry control freaks care about: your acquiescence to their power and authority, by any means necessary.