Daily Existentialist

In his book, Good and Evil , Richard Taylor (1919-2003) discusses the meaning of life, or rather the dissatisfaction we feel when it is full of meaninglessness. To discuss the essence of meaninglessness, Taylor uses a common example of this tragedy, which is found in Greek Mythology. In short, Sisyphus (King of Ephyra) was found guilty of betraying the divine secrets, thereafter was condemned to an eternity of rolling a heavy stone on the top of a hill. However, the stone never stays put, thus rolling back down the hill, so he spends the rest of eternity rolling the stone up the hill only to watch it tumble down, and so on. Taylor, as most of us would, points out that Sisyphus would be spending the rest of eternity living a meaningless life. This judgment is rather simple to understand: his life would possess no true purpose to it, regardless if the stone was heavy or weightless, beautiful or distasteful, and such.  Further in the chapter, Taylor claims that if an action does not

In his book,  Anarchy, State, and Utopia  (1974), Nozick developed a thought experiment in order for us to contemplate what is intrinsically important to us in our lives. In doing so, he attempts to refute Hedonism and its followers (Epicurus, Mill, etc.), whom popularly argued that happiness as an end is all that matters to us. The experiment is rather simple: imagine there was such a thing as an Experience Machine, in which scientists could attach electrodes to your brain and you could be given the opportunity to experience all of your dreams coming true. You could experience anything from being the world’s greatest novelist, the most accomplished quarterback in professional football, to simply fame and fortune. Also, others could join you in the Machine as well, such as family and friends, so you need not worry about their absence throughout these experiences — you would be given the opportunity to experience them with anyone you wish, so long as they, too, plug into the Machine. 

One way that I often approach problems of free will is by first developing a philosophical grasp on the existence (or nonexistence) of time, particularly what it means to God. Given that free will is profoundly dependent on a certain model of time, I believe it to be the basis of where the argument may lead. If we are to say that God has foreknowledge of our actions, we are then committing ourselves to placing Him as coexistent with our dimensions of space and time: if God created all things, then He must know all things. And if He knows all things, then He must’ve known the night before that I was reading  Justice  (Sandel) earlier today.  By assuming the existence of God, we are then saying that God knows all. However, what I think most Theologists don't consider is that God is not a traveler of our time and spacial conditions. He created time, but merely for it to be used as a tool by mankind (e.g. it will take approximately 1.5 hours to arrive to church). Time is merely a