Does God directly share knowledge/information with you?

[idav]

And how would this show that God is connecting to you?

Cause animals don't normally have free will.

 

[serp777]

I used to be very skeptical of such people. I am no more. I will sometimes entertain skepticism, but not to level of inherent doubt.



I connect with what I self identify as Spirit. I understand it as Holy Spirit. I've had it suggested to me (numerous times, from earthly beings) that I connect with specific spirits (i.e. Jesus, or passed relative). I'm not opposed to that, but not how I filter the connection at work. That conjures up too much 'ego' for me.

I'm now in a place where I'm skeptical of anyone claiming they cannot receive messages from Divine / Spirit. If I were meeting one on one with anyone reading this, I imagine whatever sort of dialogue there is to have would possibly be different than how I convey this in writing, on open forum. Here in this thread, I see the connection I am conveying as something many could be highly skeptical of. This, I think, would be first time on RF I've brought it up. I usually don't feel a need to bring it up, and most that know me are likely clueless about it. I really do generally assume everyone does have the connection in own way.

But from my theological understanding, it is not God that I have inner dialogue with. I do have inner connection with God (Creator) and for most part I see that as self evident, or plainly obvious. Yet, I don't see Creator God as relying on communication devices / language that are indirect or have questionable understandings of meaning. I also don't see Creator God as remotely considering the notion that I, at times, identify with a self that sees God as separate from me.

Thank you for such a well fleshed out post and all the detail you've provided, but there's quite a lot here and im not sure ill have time to address it all so forgive me if I miss some stuff.

I'm now in a place where I'm skeptical of anyone claiming they cannot receive messages from Divine / Spirit.

This first paragraph will address much of the first chunk of your text. I've never said that I definitely cannot receive messages from the Divine. That would require me to prove that it was impossible for the divine to send me messages, which is quite a significant claim. However, what i'm asking is how you can know that your messages from the divine are legitimate, accurate, and from the correct source? How could you differentiate God from your brain malfunctioning, or from satan tricking you, or from an alien conducting a neurological experiment on you? I seriously doubt you can and I await for any argument you can provide.

Here on open forum, I don't believe I'm able to provide answers that would work a) for everyone and b) overcome extreme scrutiny.

In other words you can't actually know that you're getting messages from the divine. If you can't show that you're getting messages from the divine and that your brain couldn't make a mistake, then I don't see how you could claim, if you're being honest, that you know the messages you get are in fact from the divine. What do you want to bet that the messages change substantially if you take caffeine, or drink alcohol, or change up your diet, or are tired, etc? It seems much more likely to be a neurological phenomenal than it does to be an actual message.

That from Spirit's perspective, the notion of "I am talking to my Self" makes abundant sense.

It seems like here you even admit that you're just talking to yourself--perhaps talking to your brain and subconscious. I see no reason why this includes the holy spirit though. Maybe your sub conscious is just trolling you.

Spirit suggests things to me. Never commands / demands. Some things will be communicated as "strongly suggest" and I sit up and take notice if that's being communicated.

Can you get your spirit to give me a list of stock prices for various companies over the next few years? If you do this i think we can conclusively demonstrate whether or not you're actually getting divine messages. If you can't and your spirit only provides you with ambiguous/vague/non predictive information, then i think its extremely likely that its just your brain acting on its own. I mean if I was getting messages I would ask for some predictive information to confirm that I wasn't going crazy. Only predictive information regarding world events or stock prices or something could persuade me that I was getting divine messages.

 

[serp777]

Cause animals don't normally have free will.

Has it been proven that humans have actual free will? Perhaps we only act based on probabilistic models created by neural structures in our brains. This way we would act like we had free will, but we would just be following some mathematical construct in reality. It seems like a leap to assume we do have actual free will. Also why couldn't with have free will without a connection to GOd?

 

[idav]

Has it been proven that humans have actual free will? Perhaps we only act based on probabilistic models created by neural structures in our brains. This way we would act like we had free will, but we would just be following some mathematical construct in reality. It seems like a leap to assume we do have actual free will. Also why couldn't with have free will without a connection to GOd?

If free will doesn't exist then gods not very powerful.

Physics shows a non-deterministic universe.

Free will is a god nature, otherwise it is a deterministic universe without our ability to do or say anything about it.

 

[serp777]

If free will doesn't exist then gods not very powerful.

Physics shows a non-deterministic universe.

Free will is a god nature, otherwise it is a deterministic universe without our ability to do or say anything about it.

If free will doesn't exist then gods not very powerful.

That's a non sequitor. Maybe God just felt like making preprogrammed robots.

Physics shows a non-deterministic universe.

Nothing I said contradicted this.

Free will is a god nature, otherwise it is a deterministic universe without our ability to do or say anything about it.

No,no, no. You're creating a false dilemma--either free will or a deterministic universe. You're forgetting about the universe where humans don't have free will and the universe is not deterministic-they act similar to very advanced computer programs, which use random number generators and probability models to determine the next action. What this means is that humans are just non deterministic algorithms--there's no free will though because its just following the algorithm.

 

[Quintessence]

Its actually a solid choice, albeit an unusual choice, because accurate refers to the information people interpret from the feelings they supposedly receive from God. For example, people have often told me that these feelings from God guide them to pick the correct objective morals and to know various attributes of God.

I can see where you think that it's a solid choice if these are the sorts of people you are referencing. For theists who don't do things like claim the "correct objective morals" come from their gods, "accuracy" is a strange criteria to impose. I don't feel like that makes sense within the context of my own theology.

Accurate refers to knowing how your interpretation of these feelings remains valid and precise.

In that case, I've got nothing to add beyond what I've already said, and what I already said applies to all human knowledge. At the end of the day, a human never knows if they know. Ever. It's why we are left trusting past experiences, the schemas we build around them, and trusting in ourselves to be sensible most of the time.

The problem with this example is that the schema you call a "restaurant" is based on physical, empirical data, observations, and predictions that are confirmed with successive observations and evidence. A better example, in my opinion, would be developing a schema about invisible restaurants on mars.

I don't see any problem with the example at all. To me, that you think this would be a better example reflects some inaccurate assumptions about how theists necessarily regard their gods. I'd call this a case of mythological literalism syndrome if you think that our gods are somehow the equivalent of invisible restaurants on Mars. I'm getting the impression that you're also disregarding the immaterial components of the schema "restaurant" too. Perhaps the most important distinguishing characteristic for the schema "restaurant" isn't physical, it is the declaration of the purpose of that space. Otherwise, the physical space of a restaurant is merely a space filled with some furniture and organic compounds.

 

[Windwalker]

Its basically a hotline though. God is an external entity and he's conveying feelings to you through some method. THe idea with the hotline analogy is that there is an exchange of some kind of information between you and an external entity.

But I had just finished rejecting that view of God being wholly external. I had said specifically, "In how I would speak of it would be in a more valid sense that you are simply in touch with the divine in yourself." Christianity itself speaks of "Christ in you", and "the kingdom of God is inside you". This is not an external "entity", even though some may envision it in such ways. Let me explain.

Drawing on the experience of love and happiness, which I'm going to come back to in this response, people imagine love, or happiness, as something that comes from outside themselves too. They do it all the time. Most people do. They imagine it comes from a source outside of themselves. They imagine the other person makes them feel love. They imagine happiness comes from something outside of themselves. But the real reality of it is that love, and happiness as well, is something that is already theirs. The only thing the "other" does is provide an object of focus for "belief" that person looks to and opens themselves up to their own love, to their own happiness. It comes from within them, and the "other", the external object, be that a person or thing, is simply what we choose to 'believe in' in order to experience our own love.

So when someone experiences God, what they are doing is experiencing what is already inside of them, buried deep underneath all sorts of doubts, perspectives about reality that hides it from themselves. They have a moment, or more, of something which inspires "faith" within them which allows them to experience that, to embrace that, to know that. But like people who imagine the other person "makes them happy", people imagine this process as it coming from "outside" of themselves, from the "other". That dichotomy, that dualistic sense is an illusion of the mind - yet an understandable one. So, like love, which when you experience it is not something that is "outside" you, neither is God. God is Love.

Moreover, this "insight" that comes up from the deep within us cannot be inferred to be from a supreme being. There seems to be no way you can differentiate between your brain or Satan or an alien tricking you and God. How could you possibly tell the difference? It appears to be completely circular--you know your feelings and insight are accurate because they're true.

Again with your choice of word "accurate". What is this odd criteria you are placing on things like love, which you did again in this response? How can you tell the difference between valid feelings and delusion or wishful thinking? Again, maturity and experience. I'm sorry, there simply are no guarantees with things like this. Real reality doesn't look anything like a world where you have external authorities telling you about your own feelings. That's something you just have to learn, and it will ultimately be a matter of you finding your own truth, your own answers. What it sounds like to me in your response, what you are looking for is essentially "more reliable" source than belief in God to do exactly what you imagine God should do for you but doesn't.

These are interior things, and must be understood from the inside. There is nobody who can tell you who you are or what is true to you. To seek for that, is a fool's errand. "Are my feelings valid or not? Tell me what to believe about myself!" That's a sign of immaturity.

I would submit that's a poor analogy. However, first of all, let me mention that many people don't really even know what love is because they would need a reference point of a true love feeling.

Only if they are immature. It's like the saying, "When it happens to you, you'll know it." That's not good enough for people who have no real experiences themselves who are looking for this nebulous, shadowy thing they hear people talk about called love". They lack confidence in knowing what is real themselves, because they have no personal experience. Prior to this, because they see and hear others speak about this mysterious thing called "love" all the time, they have no reason to doubt its reality. However, they not having experienced it in the context of relationships with others, don't know what it is. They only know about it from others. It is still "outside themselves" to them, and they need someone to assure them externally to themselves they are themselves on track. All that is of course never going to actually let them know what love is. But once they do experience it, then all of what others said is stuck into a box of childhood ignorance in a back closet. The real thing doesn't need external validation.

Realistically speaking, you can't know if you've actually been in love because you haven't tried to experience it with all possible people.

This is an amazing line of reasoning I've never heard, nor imagined anyone would think. Love takes many forms. It's experienced in a myriad of ways, and with many people. You think that if you experience love with one person, then that relationship changes or ends and you meet another and experience love with them that this invalidates your previous experience? You imagine love as a "thing" that is one thing you must attain, and when you experience it with another in a different way, that the previous way must not have been love? That's quite curious indeed.

To me, the only valid thing that can be said about your analogy here is that you cannot say you have experienced love in all the ways it can be experienced. And that indeed is true! There is a fulness of love that is limitless. It can be experienced with many people, each in unique ways because each person is different and the relationship will be unique with them with yourself. How that is experienced will be different, but it is all still love. Water is still water, whether it takes the shape of a pond, a glass of water, a creek, a river, or the ocean itself. Same with God.

For example, after thousands of tries you might find you have even stronger feelings for someone compared to the previous person that you thought you loved.

That doesn't mean you didn't know love. It simply means you are maturing and deepening your experience of love as a person because you are gaining experience and insights about it in yourself. That love, like God, is there the whole time. How much or how little you draw from it in yourself is a factor that is individual and has to do with your own person in response to them. You didn't "not love" the other person. You simply loved in what ways you were able to at the time.

At best you can say that its likely that been in love. Obviously i recognize that people can probably recognize ( they have the proper self awareness) they're in love, but if we're being honest you have to accept a certain level of doubt since you haven't tried to fall in love with all possible people.

Do you have any doubts whatsoever you are drinking water at home because you haven't drunk water from a well in the middle of India?

Anyways, the main problem with your analogy is that you can see people and communicate, and interact with them verbally, emotionally, and physically. A better analogy is that its like falling in love with the invisible ghost of a dead person.

Here's the problem with this. In reality, as I said, it's not the other person that gives you, or brings to you love. Love does not come "from them". It comes from you. So in reality, since it is not from the other person but from you, the other person is in effect simply an object that you open yourself to and allow yourself to experience love that you already had! This is not the common way we think of this, but in reality that is exactly what it is. In reality, that person is an "object of your love". The secret is, you can experience that love by just thinking about them, without them anywhere around you. You can experience that love even when they are dead. In reality, it is your 'faith' or belief in that "other" that inspires that love within you to be experienced by you.

The problem is, like the Ghost, you haven't established God's existence in the first place to know if your feelings about the reality of God are accurate or just a fabrication.

You establish the existence of love by experiencing it. You establish the existence of God by experiencing it. I can experience God through another human, the same way I can experience love through them. I can experience God in a waterfall, in a child, in a flower, in the sky, or simply in myself in silence. To equate God as the waterfall itself misses the point utterly. In reality, all the things you think 'give you' love, are ghosts, even if they are standing right in front of you in material forms. It is still your immaterial faith in them as objects of love that allows you to know that love which you already had the whole time. Same with God.

Even worse, you have no idea if its an evil demon spirit messing with you as opposed to the Ghost of the dead person.

This is all reflective of anxieties around the unknown. When someone has no experience, they have no confidence in themselves. Or, worse, when they made mistakes in their thinking because of their immaturity and lack of experience, they shut down and never trust themselves again! I think honestly, that describes a lot of those who become 'anti-theists". It's a lot like those who "hate women" or "hate men" after failed relationships. That's about themselves, not men or women, or God. "God is a fiction!" sounds a lot like "Love is a big lie!"

Similarly, with feelings from God you don't know if its an alien doing an experiment on you, or satan is messing with you, or your brain is just plain malfunctioning.

You certainly can know the difference and have confidence in it. The true ultimate test of course is in the fruits it bears in your life. Does it result in a deeper, richer, fuller, more happy, more loving, more open experience of life? Then it's real. Then it's genuine.

(continued...)

 

[Windwalker]

Here you rightfully admit another significant problem with feelings from God. Even if you are getting feeling messages from God, you can't know if you're interpreting them correctly. God hasn't given you the "feelings" Rosetta stone so there doesn't seem to be a reliable way to convert these feelings into any useful information.

What "Rosetta stone" exists for interpreting the knowledge you gain from the experience of love? Again, with your wholly artificial criteria of "correct" or "accurate". How we understand and interpret anything in life will in fact change and deepen, or be modified or discarded as we adapt it to the context of the circumstances we find ourselves in! Here comes the truth of this you seem to miss.

Do you accept that evolution is true? I would assume so. I do as well. Do you understand the ramifications of it? Reality is on the move. It's in flux. It's not static. It's dynamic. Right? Truth, or reality, is not some static thing that you can find and say "this is the way it is". In reality, this is the way it is at that moment. Things may appear "stable" once a pattern is established and becomes well-worn, but that is not to project some eternal "law" to it. That's a fictional representation of reality. And when you move into things like feelings, and relationships, subjective perspectives in animated and evolving systems, well this "static" notion of reality is even less applicable. How we think and perceive and interpret things is constantly in motion, constantly changing. Yet, for all that, there is "relative" truth to the moment, but only for a time until thing sufficiently change enough where that previous understanding no longer fits. Truth evolves as we evolve, or grow from year to year, month to month, day to day.

So this business of "interpreting them correctly", is completely relative. Only you can say if how you are interpreting something has validity to you. And then, it is only valid for the time you are interpreting. Again, the experience may be the same, but the interpretation of it will change. It does not invalidate another an earlier interpretation. It simply builds upon it, modifies it, and/or changes how it is understood based upon new contexts. To me, if you accept evolution, this is in fact where you do have to go and quit holding on to a mythological static-reality model. The static-reality model is a holdover from our ancient ignorance, applying our ideas about God to the world. It's subtle, and most people don't see that they are just continuing this view that contradicts what we now know about the nature of reality. Everything changes. Truth is dynamic, not static.

I would also bet that these feelings depend on your mood, or even on what foods you've eaten.

Well, when I speak about God is is actually a little more fundamental than emotions. But yes, our feelings can of course be affected by our bodies. Be sufficiently self-aware enough you should be able to recognize how and when it is, rather than simply going along for the ride like being tied by a rope behind a horse. Most people tend to just go along for the ride and assume everything they feel and think reflects the reality of it. Again, growing up, maturing, becoming self-aware allows multiple perspectives to be taken into account in weighing what we choose to believe and follow as true for us, at the time. Getting over the mythological notion that "truth" is simply laying around for you out there to find is the first step in really widening that context you exist in and see the world through.

It seems to me that its more likely to be a neurological epiphenomena than God sending you particular feelings.

that's because you don't have any actual experience to speak from and you're guessing about something you don't have the necessary context in order to evaluate it for yourself. Do you have any experience you could legitimately identify as God, even using another word that might come close to convey that sense of the Ultimate, or Infinite, or Transcendent? If not, then it's purely blind speculation about something you don't have the actual data in hand in order to look at.

I'm told that people use these feelings from God to know the correct morality, to know of his existence and to know God's attributes. This is what accurate is referring to--for example, how can you be sure your feelings from God to "know the correct morality" are in fact valid?

Well, I would say there are a lot of people claiming to be having "God" tell them something, when it reality it's not even remotely anything to do with what can be called God. It's more just their absolutistic thinking trying to find validation for their beliefs, rather than being open to knowledge beyond them. It can be complex to talk about this, and would really need to be looked at considering a whole raft of factors for the individual. Pat Robertson's thoughts versus the Dalai Lama's are radically different from each other. Pat Robertson's ways of looking at these things is more like a four year old trying to tell you what God is, versus a thousand year old sage who has spent his entire existence exploring the inner dimensions of self and reality. You have to weigh who is claiming what, of course. It's like Ken Ham doing science versus Bill Nye. Just because Ken Ham claims to know science, doesn't mean you say all science looks like Ken Ham.

Also, its more like asking your sister if she's fallen in love with an invisible Ghost.

She actually has. We fall in love with what we see in the other person, which is in reality an extension of ourselves and our hopes and dreams. The actual person is never exactly what we project upon them. It is for all intents and purposes a "Ghost". Chew on that awhile...

In this case, the feelings of the sister would supposedly prove the existence of the Ghost. Herein lies the problem--people's feelings from God are proving the existence of God.

They are experiencing God through their beliefs about God. Rather, they are opening to God which is already within them, through faith. Just like your sister opens to the love she has through her faith in the other person. It's like Jesus said, which few people actually see, "Your faith has made you whole". He says in effect, "It wasn't me, but you. YOUR faith made you whole". Your faith let's you experience love. It let's you experience God. And when you do, you don't need someone to tell you it's real. You'll know. And you won't until you do.

 

[Acim]

This first paragraph will address much of the first chunk of your text. I've never said that I definitely cannot receive messages from the Divine. That would require me to prove that it was impossible for the divine to send me messages, which is quite a significant claim. However, what i'm asking is how you can know that your messages from the divine are legitimate, accurate, and from the correct source? How could you differentiate God from your brain malfunctioning, or from satan tricking you, or from an alien conducting a neurological experiment on you? I seriously doubt you can and I await for any argument you can provide.

I thought I made clear that it is not my belief that Creator God is communicating (in the way I laid out) directly with me. I said I call it Spirit, and perhaps it would help in what you're getting at that it is simply a term I use. I do have theology that has high degree of certainty in it, and yet is not as hung up on terms as you might think. Such that, I am around 99% certain that from what I referenced earlier as inner Guidance would have zero issues with me changing terms in how I reference 'it' (or God, or even my Self).

But you're suggesting that it is something else and that something else is in vein of inherently poor guidance / trickery. I'm feel perfectly willing to explore each point you brought up, or could bring up with regards to such guidance amounting to what I see you as attributing it to a) trickery or b) self deception. Though, I'd really wish to balance those same assertions with all types of thinking, such that when any conceivable situation comes up with humans and their thinking (let's take utilizing scientific methodology for example), how would we know for certain that it isn't brain malfunctioning, Satan tricking us, or alien neurological experiments that are truly what's at work in the situation? Not saying I don't have a response to this (rhetoric), but curious how you might respond to the inquiry yourself.

In other words you can't actually know that you're getting messages from the divine. If you can't show that you're getting messages from the divine

Wishing to interrupt cause as I said earlier, I'm at a point (have been for more than a decade) where I see it as impossible to not get messages from the divine.

and that your brain couldn't make a mistake, then I don't see how you could claim, if you're being honest, that you know the messages you get are in fact from the divine. What do you want to bet that the messages change substantially if you take caffeine, or drink alcohol, or change up your diet, or are tired, etc? It seems much more likely to be a neurological phenomenal than it does to be an actual message.

All thinking is a neurological phenomenon. And can be actual messages.

I did word search on the term "know" with my previous post to see where you may have thought I said "I know it is from the divine." I did not find that assertion. Just so you're not having to go back and re-quote what I did say, I'll do that for you:

How do I know this isn't just fantasy/delusion? Here on open forum, I don't believe I'm able to provide answers that would work a) for everyone and b) overcome extreme scrutiny. I personally don't see any ideology that could overcome extreme scrutiny or relentless contentiousness.

The last point would be the one where if we are going to openly debate on this topic, I'm game. Not my first rodeo. I'm the person in other threads challenging anyone/everyone to provide (truly) objective evidence for physical existence. So far, zero persons have stepped forward and provided such evidence. So, if wishing to get into the game of scrutinizing things at a fundamental level, just realize I'm going to likely want that to be explored beyond making it entirely personal as if I'm somehow, magically doing something vastly different with thinking than what literally all other thoughts are essentially appearing as, from an outward-in perspective. Again, I personally do not see any ideology that could overcome extreme scrutiny or relentless contentiousness. So, like many/some people, I'll go with degrees of confidence that may amount to "knowledge" for other people, but I usually don't use that word.

I am currently around 99% confident that messages I receive are divine. 1% of me feels perfectly willing to explore that as 'something else is occurring, let's discuss that possibility.'

It seems like here you even admit that you're just talking to yourself--perhaps talking to your brain and subconscious. I see no reason why this includes the holy spirit though. Maybe your sub conscious is just trolling you.

Talking to brain and subconscious, in how I currently understand those terms, strikes me as nonsensical. Perhaps you can step to the plate and make more sense of such assertions. Thus far, I observe you are still sitting in the dugout.

Can you get your spirit to give me a list of stock prices for various companies over the next few years?

Yes.

If you do this i think we can conclusively demonstrate whether or not you're actually getting divine messages.

I disagree. I mostly disagree that you'd view it in such a manner.
I also believe you could get such messages directly yourself and thus provide better demonstration that would be more convincing on the thing that I currently think might not even demonstrate to your own self what you are claiming would be conclusive. I believe if you did receive such a message, you would not attribute it to divinity.

If you can't and your spirit only provides you with ambiguous/vague/non predictive information, then i think its extremely likely that its just your brain acting on its own. I mean if I was getting messages I would ask for some predictive information to confirm that I wasn't going crazy. Only predictive information regarding world events or stock prices or something could persuade me that I was getting divine messages.

All of what you're getting at is, to me, the kindergarten considerations for receiving divine messages. As if I haven't already considered such notions (decades ago). Given your lack of respect for what I said and your repeated incredulity, I'm going to pass on entertaining your challenge that I'm fairly convinced would not demonstrate what you are alleging it would demonstrate. Though willing to discuss further if you're willing to put own thinking to same scrutiny you are applying to me/my thinking/guidance (in general).

 

[The_Fisher_King]

This is mostly for people of the Abrahamic faiths. I've heard many people saying that God gives them certain "feelings" or particular information, which conveys to them what morality they should subscribe to, the attributes of God, and generally how to act and behave.

I am always very skeptical of people who claim they basically have a hotline to God. For starters how do these people know that its God? They say that they know its God because they feel its correct. It sounds like circular reasoning to me because how can they assume their feelings are correct. For all these people know it could be the devil manipulating them and their feelings, or an advanced alien race messing with their heads. Or it could just be a delusion/fantasy created by their brains due to a genetic predisposition. I guess my real question is how these religious people can know that they are getting accurate information from the real God.

I believe God talks to me. I believe I converse with God. Daily. So too with the Devil. How do I distinguish God's Voices from the Devil's voices? God advises and guides and supports me. The Devil mocks and persecutes me and incites me to violence. I am pretty confident that I have things right, but I remain open to the possibility that I could be wrong, that I could be delusional, or that the voices are real voices coming from someplace else. But thus far, talking to God, and listening to what They have to say has brought me good things, and listening to the Devil has not.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Can you get your spirit to give me a list of stock prices for various companies over the next few years?

No.

Only predictive information regarding world events or stock prices or something could persuade me that I was getting divine messages.

Why? Is it not possible that a powerful divine entity could exist that was nevertheless not capable of providing predictive information, perhaps because it is impossible to predict the future (with any degree of accuracy)?

 

[idav]

That's a non sequitor. Maybe God just felt like making preprogrammed robots.

Didn't say god couldn't, its within gods power.

No,no, no. You're creating a false dilemma--either free will or a deterministic universe. You're forgetting about the universe where humans don't have free will and the universe is not deterministic-they act similar to very advanced computer programs, which use random number generators and probability models to determine the next action. What this means is that humans are just non deterministic algorithms--there's no free will though because its just following the algorithm.

No, I don't think either free will or deterministic universe. What I meant is that free will can't exist in a deterministic universe. At the very least an undeterministic universe leaves free will as an open possibility otherwise it would be an impossibility.

I think determinism is part of any choice process, even multiple universes would exist based on deterministic concepts and at the same time multiple universes leaves the door open for choices and possibilities.