The philosophy of Adam

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
don't agree. free will only gives the possibility of sinning. one can still choose what is right.

But you said "you cannot have free will and only do what is right."
Are you taking that back?

god didn't want us to HAVE to always choose what is right. he gave us choices and consequences.
In other words, he wanted us to choose wrong sometimes? Make up your mind.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But you said [b]"you cannot have free will and only do what is right."
Are you taking that back?

god didn't want us to HAVE to always choose what is right. he gave us choices and consequences.
In other words, he wanted us to choose wrong sometimes? Make up your mind.[/b]

you are not being logical here, you know that, right?

you cannot have free will and only do what is right.
god didn't want us to HAVE(see? it is emphasized) to choose what is right.

these statements do not contradict. it just shows man is free to do whatever he wants, but god wishes we choose what is morally correct.

let me give another example: what merit does a computer have for doing exactly what the programmer commanded it to do? will you give a cookie to your computer if it saves your document?

another example: if you give a gun to a person, you are giving him the possibility to kill a child and the possibility to defend himself against a thug. by giving him choices does it mean you want gun owners to choose wrong sometimes?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
you are not being logical here, you know that, right?

Know, I can't see any flaws in my logic.

you cannot have free will and only do what is right.
god didn't want us to HAVE(see? it is emphasized) to choose what is right.

these statements do not contradict.
I didn't say they did.

it just shows man is free to do whatever he wants, but god wishes we choose what is morally correct.
But God simultaneously knows that we cannot have the free will to do whatever we want and always choose what is morally correct.

let me give another example: what merit does a computer have for doing exactly what the programmer commanded it to do? will you give a cookie to your computer if it saves your document?
I don't see the relevance. God has this burning need to give out cookies?

another example: if you give a gun to a person, you are giving him the possibility to kill a child and the possibility to defend himself against a thug. by giving him choices does it mean you want gun owners to choose wrong sometimes?
But you claimed that if you gave out guns then it would be impossible for gun owners to avoid shooting children or have you forgotten already that you said:
you cannot have free will and only do what is right.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Know, I can't see any flaws in my logic.

[b]you cannot have free will and only do what is right.
god didn't want us to HAVE(see? it is emphasized) to choose what is right.

these statements do not contradict.
I didn't say they did.

it just shows man is free to do whatever he wants, but god wishes we choose what is morally correct. ...[text shortened]... rgotten already that you said:
you cannot have free will and only do what is right. [/b]

i have the impression we are both saying the same thing and not realizing.

Me:these statements do not contradict.
You:I didn't say they did.
Me: i believed you did when you said i probably have to take one back. i said that free will gives the possibility of doing wrong, but one can still choose right and god wants us to do right.


But God simultaneously knows that we cannot have the free will to do whatever we want and always choose what is morally correct.
Not sure what the claim is in this statement so i will try and guess that he is a jerk who wants us to do wrong. if that is what you are saying, would like to disagree. free will is the more important issue. if god created us perfect, there would be no accomplishment for doing exactly what he wants us to do. god wants us to be able to choose between good and evil and he wants us to evolve to the point where we choose good even if the choice of evil is still present.

I don't see the relevance. God has this burning need to give out cookies?
Heaven is one giant cookie given to those that are good. but my point to that example was that there is no reason to reward someone for doing the only thing that someone is capable of doing. we don't find it worthy of mention if an object falls to the ground when dropped.

But you claimed that if you gave out guns then it would be impossible for gun owners to avoid shooting children or have you forgotten already that you said.
No i haven't forgotten, and no, i don't see any problem with the said claim. the person who presents choices is not evil. the person who makes the evil choice is evil(more or less). I based my statement on the fact that humans are not capable yet to always choose the right step. that is the point of free will and reason, to get there. to eliminate or convert the deviants, the ones who will choose what is best for them and harmful for others or what is best on the short run and not long term. If the destination would be handed to us, there would not be much point to the universe. If you get to the last page of a book, you read the conclusion and the book ends. and all the experience of reading the events leading to that conclusion is lost.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i have the impression we are both saying the same thing and not realizing.

It was these two statement that I found contradictory:
"you cannot have free will and only do what is right."
and
"free will only gives the possibility of sinning. one can still choose what is right."

I do think I understand you now regarding free will. But I disagree about your claim "the person who presents choices is not evil". If I give my son a gun, knowing that he is likely to shoot his friend with it, then I am evil. If you were right that we are incapable of avoiding doing the wrong thing sometimes with our free will, then giving us free will makes the giver partially liable. Whether that makes him evil depends on the alternative choices.
I now realize however that you are arguing that the pros of free will may outweigh the cons, and that seems like a reasonable argument to make.
I personally do not support relaxed private gun ownership laws, because of the high incidence of accidents and the other side effects such as criminals getting easy access to guns. But it can be argued that the protection provided by a gun outweighs those risks.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It was these two statement that I found contradictory:
"you cannot have free will and only do what is right."
and
"free will only gives the possibility of sinning. one can still choose what is right."

I do think I understand you now regarding free will. But I disagree about your claim "the person who presents choices is not evil". If I give my son ...[text shortened]... to guns. But it can be argued that the protection provided by a gun outweighs those risks.

the gun example was at the top of my head because i am not in favor of lax gun control either. in fact i would have it much more strict than today.
while i am liberal in some areas, i am conservative in others.

the point of my example is that god chose not to make discriminations. when he gave free will, he gave it in full. and he gave it knowing that some hummies will be more messed up than others and will abuse this privilege. but he chose to give it anyway. and uphold the policy of no intervening, let the hummies sort their problems(a deviant being humanity's problem).

if you gave your 12 year old son a gun, you would be evil. if your son would be 18, but mentally unstable or challenged, you would be evil. my example applies to giving the possibility of choice to someone fully responsible of his own actions. what that person chooses to do is entirely that person's responsibility.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It was these two statement that I found contradictory:
"you cannot have free will and only do what is right."
and
"free will only gives the possibility of sinning. one can still choose what is right."

I do think I understand you now regarding free will. But I disagree about your claim "the person who presents choices is not evil". If I give my son ...[text shortened]... to guns. But it can be argued that the protection provided by a gun outweighs those risks.

"you cannot have free will and only do what is right."
and
"free will only gives the possibility of sinning. one can still choose what is right."

perhaps they are contradictory. by the first i meant that the probability is high that someone at some time will do an evil deed. and by the second i meant that there is a probability even remote that someone would only do what is right even if given free will.

these statements come from the conviction that humanity is not yet in the position of choosing right over wrong all the time.(probably never will).