But there is no "free" will (a free-standing, sui-generis desire), because desire, by definition, arises by the perceived lack of something (hence, why would God have a will?) , and our chocies are not without influence because choices, by definition, cannot be equal. How does that translate into "life matters" and 'life, therefore, has meaning?"
I suppose by "matters" you are saying it is consequential and by "meaning" that it has purpose; but "consequential" is to say importance, and "purpose" is to say a goal. So, then, it seems like you are saying the purpose of life is to make decisions that are of consequence to us. That's like saying the purpose of life is to live. Pretty circular.
And then we have a problem with those individuals whose life was decided by someone else, such as Judas and Paul. :)
Free will is the ability to make choices. A perceived dissatisfaction with an existing condition produces the desire to exercise that ability. The only lack necessary is lack of satisfaction with the present situation. Hence God could say that it is not good for the man to continue alone.
He was not satisfied with leaving Adam without a mate.
No choice can be without influence or the choosing would not take place at all but choice with no influence at all is not what free will is.
Since you bring Paul and Judas into the discussion again....They both made decisions freely, they each had an opportunity to exercise a choice of one path or another at various times and their choices had consequences.
Were they influenced by anything? Of course they were!
Simply having choices available may be an influence.
Are all choices equal? Of course not! But often until they are made and pursued for a time their inequality may not be known. Does a person marry or not? Do they marry “A” or “B” if both are available?
“And then we have a problem with those individuals whose life was decided by someone else, such as Judas and Paul. :)”
It was the consequences of their free will decisions that was decided by someone else. I buy a stock and it goes down in value, If I could decide that it should go up I certainly would but I cannot. But that is a “problem” inherent in most decisions we make, we cannot choose or decide the consequences.
Either I don't understand that definition and/or I don't accept it. Free will isn't a desire, it's a faculty of consciousness allowing decision and choice.
our chocies are not without influence because choices, by definition, cannot be equal.
I don't see how influences negate choice. And choices can be equal in some ways and not in others. Obviously something must be different or else there is nothing to choose between.
How does that translate into "life matters" and 'life, therefore, has meaning?"
It is our ability to affect ourselves, our surroundings and others that gives human life meaning. What we choose and do matters.
This was proposed as opposed to strict predestination where our choices are an illusion, and only seem to matter to us.
It would be. No, I'm saying consciousness, choices, the ability to determine and effectuate purpose gives meaning. The choice aspect is a faculty that provides a means, not an end.
To clarify in regards to determinism: without the means of free will, choosing, being real, then we are only living an illusion that our learning, considering, deciding have meaning. We are only actors who do not know they are in a play.