Argument of Free Will

@kennethamy,

Just that murder shold be seen in a context, as the legal system doe it, is it a fireing squad, then it's legal murder, if it's a war casualty, it can be either a colatteral casualty or an enemy falling, it could be a legal selfdefense ..or whatever.

It isn't just as black and white as people wants it to be.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

yes, thank you for answering my question.

1 Reply

@barnebyj,

barnebyj wrote:

yes, thank you for answering my question.

I wouldn't say that k-a answerd your question, as a policeman isn't the judge nor jury, nor isn't he your mother and father. How is it a policeman has creating powers?

barnebyj you are prone to be mislead by beautiful rethorics, than reason and logic. You want to belive in your ideology and only seek beautiful words that will appleal to such.

1 Reply

@HexHammer,

first of all, i never said i accepted his answer i just appreciate the fact that he gave an answer instead of trying to debate my question. second, this is not my ideology (i'm agnostic i could really care less what anyone believes) this idea was assigned to me and i have to come up with an argument to prove it. i already formed an argument i just wanted to see what arguments other people would make.

1 Reply

@barnebyj,

That makes little sense to me, I too have answerd your question, yet no thanks has been dispensed. Strange logic.

1 Reply

@HexHammer,

so far you haven't presented any argument for why God should prevent someone from doing harm, you have argued against this by saying that it is wrong to rely on Him.

1 Reply

@barnebyj,

barnebyj wrote:

so far you haven't presented any argument for why God should prevent someone from doing harm, you have argued against this by saying that it is wrong to rely on Him.

I have argued why, jus that the answer doesn't appeal to you, thus you won't accept it, it's due to your low rationallity, just like an erotoman will not understand when the victim will refuse the erotoman. It's about preception.

What you really mean is a satisfying/forfilling answer.

1 Reply

@HexHammer,

and what exactly was your argument for allowing God to restrict a person's freedom in order to prevent harm, because apparently i'm blind and cannot see it.

1 Reply

@barnebyj,

Dude, I'll put you on ignore, I'm apparently talking to a bot, that can't precive, rationalize nor comprehend very simple things.

0 Replies

@HexHammer,

HexHammer wrote:

Just that murder shold be seen in a context, as the legal system doe it, is it a fireing squad, then it's legal murder, if it's a war casualty, it can be either a colatteral casualty or an enemy falling, it could be a legal selfdefense ..or whatever.

It isn't just as black and white as people wants it to be.

What has any of that to do with the OP? The question is whether God ought not to intervene to stop someone from doing something bad just to preserve that person's free will? The answer is, obviously no.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

My good k-a, I'v posted a bit more posts in this thread, than that quote, expanding on my reasoning why.

1 Reply

@HexHammer,

HexHammer wrote:

My good k-a, I'v posted a bit more posts in this thread, than that quote, expanding on my reasoning why.

So, what has it to do with the OP issue? Instead of saying that it does, how about saying how it does?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

I do admit that I in my first answer made a wrong answer, by reading what I expeteced to read, the usual "why God shouldn't intervein" ..when it was "should".

But my 2nd answer did answer his initial question, though it was kinda halfbaked.

HexHammer wrote:

Rubbish, if you should guard humans for 8000 years, wouldn't grow bored of saving them for every little minescule thing, when they are strong enough to survive on their own? Humans are still around ..think!

1 Reply

@HexHammer,

HexHammer wrote:

I do admit that I in my first answer made a wrong answer, by reading what I expeteced to read, the usual "why God shouldn't intervein" ..when it was "should".

But my 2nd answer did answer his initial question, though it was kinda halfbaked.
HexHammer wrote:
Rubbish, if you should guard humans for 8000 years, wouldn't grow bored of saving them for every little minescule thing, when they are strong enough to survive on their own? Humans are still around ..think!

How was it even relevant to his question, never mind being half-baked?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

k-a ur right, I'm the stupid one here, I'm an idiot, and thankful that you have corrected me in my folly, I appologize to OP for my stupidity an unreasonable outburst against you. I'm ashamed of myself.

1 Reply

@HexHammer,

HexHammer wrote:

k-a ur right, I'm the stupid one here, I'm an idiot, and thankful that you have corrected me in my folly, I appologize to OP for my stupidity an unreasonable outburst against you. I'm ashamed of myself.

No need to throw yourself on the sword.

0 Replies

The best possible logical answer I find to this problem resumes in the idea that if a person truly had free will, God would n´t be able to intervene at all...the very possibility of an external force be able (empowered) to intervene undermines the optimal structure of free will on Occam´s razor principle !

Either God is a mere spectator and he has Free Will
or He does n´t, and "God" (whatever) its is first and final Cause...

0 Replies

Argument of Free Will

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know