What is free will?

Fil said: "In fact you must first be a sinner before you can be a proper saint"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We're ALL sinners, so at least everybody starts on a level playing field.. Smile

“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23)
Heck, even Jesus admitted he wasn't perfect!- “Why do you call me good? No one is good—except God alone" (Mark 10:18)

0 Replies

@spendius,

Frank and I have a thing.
It's New Jersey.
Swamps, maybe.
Non Jerseyites can't understand Mr. Green

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

It seams you willingly admit "evil" preceded "Satan"...I assume you also admit "God" must have been the creator of "evil"

Evil. That was Frank's word.
The tree was the knowledge of good and bad.

One would have to read through the entirety of Frank/neo posts to see that. Can't blame you for missing it.

Good question, though. What was meant by good/bad? Why did Adam and Eve not need that knowledge (hence, be required to not eat from the tree)? Is it safe to assume that they knew what was 'good' simply because the Genesis account pronounces God's creative works as 'good'? Any words I may use to go further would result in speculation. They had a conscience, of that I am sure. Else, why would they cover themselves after they sinned?

See Romeo's misconception of good/perfect in his post at the top of the page.

2 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:
It seams you willingly admit "evil" preceded "Satan"...I assume you also admit "God" must have been the creator of "evil"
Evil. That was Frank's word.
The tree was the knowledge of good and bad.

One would have to read through the entirety of Frank/neo posts to see that. Can't blame you for missing it.

Good question, though. What was meant by good/bad? Why did Adam and Eve not need that knowledge (hence, be required to not eat from the tree)? Is it safe to assume that they knew what was 'good' simply because the Genesis account pronounces God's creative works as 'good'? Any words I may use to go further would result in speculation. They had a conscience, of that I am sure. Else, why would they cover themselves after they sinned?

The story tells us specifically that they do not know the difference between good and bad. That, in fact, is one of the main points of the story. And the story also tells us specifically that the god does not want them to gain that knowledge. That, in fact, is one of the other main points of the story.

Now you are trying to say they did know...when the entire story is about them not having that knowledge and the god wanting them not to gain that knowledge.

Why go through all that, Neo? Why contort and twist logic?

They covered themselves AFTER eating the fruit...AFTER gaining the knowledge...NOT BEFORE. The story shows that they gained that knowledge AFTER eating of the fruit...which enforces the argument that they did not have that knowledge before.

Why go through all this, Neo?

1 Reply

@neologist,

...you see... in my world "wills" are established from "needs" and "needs" are natural...even when they are the outcome of wrong perceptual misconceptions, pseudo needs, they still are needs...if Adam n Eve needed to know something if they had the urge then their curiosity was justified as well their actions, in the very same way just as we normally have reasons to not to do something...in fact no action can exist without a perfect set of conditions to materialize and not only to be pondered...the distinction between doing an not doing something requires this. Plus, whatever happens IS PERFECT per se, it is an outcome not a question.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Uh, Uh. I wondered if they know what 'good' was.
One would think they were happy until the fall. Would that be your definition of 'good'. God proclaimed his creation 'good' Did Adam and Eve know the word?

And the beat goes on. . ..

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Yeah, but if you read the Bible, you will see that God and His works are called 'perfect'. You can dispute that, of course.But it is there, nevertheless.

1 Reply

@neologist,

To my view perfection is present in everything that is...a condition of being is precisely that the form is possible, and as such it is perfect...and yes that includes all sorts of allowed deformities. Deformities are perfects within constricted specific conditions...they just are less common and with a narrower field of function that is all. Facts produce facts n my definition of perfect falls within factuality as in it the absolute is present in a full chain of cause while judgements are circumstantial even if a factual part in the real and in the perfection of such reality.

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Uh, Uh. I wondered if they know what 'good' was.
One would think they were happy until the fall. Would that be your definition of 'good'. God proclaimed his creation 'good' Did Adam and Eve know the word?

And the beat goes on. . ..

Give it up, Neo.

At Genesis 3:22, after the couple ate of the forbidden fruit…

And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil…

The Twenty-Four Books of the Old Testament; Hebrew Publishing Company, New York

The god says that they obtained the knowledge of good and evil only after eating the fruit.

C'mon...it's okay. The god won't punish you if you acknowledge that this particular story is all screwed up.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Perhaps the metaphor on the fall of man you so literally interpret speaks more then one tongue...

There's no perhaps about Fil.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

If you were not lost in the first place you have no merit.

I dare say that the punters are told things like that at the counseling clinics for drug use and, in recent years, for unregenerate priapism.

1 Reply

@neologist,

Pasture Timmy wrote:

What I understand from your replies is, you can't make a case that the children had free choice or that they deserved to be drowned, but you bow down to the God who murdered these children and see it as being fair and just.

neologist wrote:

Every child that has ever been born is under sentence of death as a result of Adam's sin.

Pasture Timmy wrote:

Is that what you would have told the innocent children who were gasping for air as God drowned them?

neologist wrote:

What makes you focus on the children of Noah's day?
Genesis, chapter 3.
In that chapter God promises relief for mankind"

OK, different children, say, your children. Would you see it as a good thing and just smile as God drowned them, knowing that "relief" would someday come?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Durn it Frank. You made me look things up. So God told Adam and Eve not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of "tohv" and "ra".

The word "ra" can properly be translated "bad", "evil",
"rotten", or several other words. Basically, it represents the antithesis of all that is Jehovah's "tohv", "good" or "perfect". So I guess, having known Jehovah and his works, they were in a mental position to comprehend that rebelling or disobeying was "bad" and deserving of the consequence warned.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

To my view perfection is present in everything that is...a condition of being is precisely that the form is possible, and as such it is perfect.

That seems to me Fil to be an unassailable argument. Except in the sense that your view is only perfect to you. It is a tautology isn't it? Perfection being what you want to call it in order to join up the circles.

A crashed 3 cwt chandelier on coming to rest, and actually at any infinitesimal point in time from coming loose, along with the tableware and guests on which it fell, was perfect then?

Have you ever been pushed off the last seat in a musical chairs game by a fat auntie?

As an unassailable argument it cannot be falsified and thus, according to Popper at least, is not scientific.

1 Reply

@Pasture Timmy,

Pasture Timmy wrote:

Would you see it as a good thing and just smile as God drowned them, knowing that "relief" would someday come?

I've had two grandchildren die as infants. Do you wonder if I mourn their deaths? Yes! Am I comforted knowing I and their parents will see them again? Yes! Do I blame God for any of this? No!

Any more questions?

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Durn it Frank. You made me look things up. So God told Adam and Eve not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of "tohv" and "ra".

The word "ra" can properly be translated "bad", "evil",
"rotten", or several other words. Basically, it represents the antithesis of all that is Jehovah's "tohv", "good" or "perfect". So I guess, having known Jehovah and his works, they were in a mental position to comprehend that rebelling or disobeying was "bad" and deserving of the consequence warned.

But the story tells us they weren't. The story specifically tells us they did not know the difference between good and evil...and the god later mentions that "now they know the difference"...after they ate the fruit.

You still haven't dealt with that in any reasonable fashion.

I doubt you will...because it cannot be dealt with in reasonable fashion...at least not from someone who has to have the god be something other than reprehensible.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
If you were not lost in the first place you have no merit.

I dare say that the punters are told things like that at the counseling clinics for drug use and, in recent years, for unregenerate priapism.

Hahaha !

I dare say I agree with you on this one but back to boredom can you point out what is wrong with it ? How else do you think value can be judged without contrasts eh ?

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
To my view perfection is present in everything that is...a condition of being is precisely that the form is possible, and as such it is perfect.

That seems to me Fil to be an unassailable argument. Except in the sense that your view is only perfect to you. It is a tautology isn't it? Perfection being what you want to call it in order to join up the circles.

A crashed 3 cwt chandelier on coming to rest, and actually at any infinitesimal point in time from coming loose, along with the tableware and guests on which it fell, was perfect then?

Have you ever been pushed off the last seat in a musical chairs game by a fat auntie?

As an unassailable argument it cannot be falsified and thus, according to Popper at least, is not scientific.

First do you intend to correct the "finger of God" ? Aren't you a daring brave man eh...
Second what is it that is not perfect in this world ? where is the working alternative to any that does exist, beyond existence ? Whatever is has reasons and thus is perfect, the value of history to the present n future is in my view proof of this perfection.
It seams to me the most plausible scientific description of perfection is to acknowledge and try to understand what we have instead of fantasizing about alternate possible worlds...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

How else do you think value can be judged without contrasts eh ?

I gave up thinking a long time ago Fil. It's the rocky road to responsible ruination.

Apisa is proof of that.

Responding to the needs of the moment is all I can manage.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

First do you intend to correct the "finger of God" ? Aren't you a daring brave man eh...
Second what is it that is not perfect in this world ? where is the working alternative to any that does exist, beyond existence ? Whatever is has reasons and thus is perfect, the value of history to the present n future is in my view proof of this perfection.

It seems to me that the mistake, and I know you will correct me on the matter, is that "perfection" is an entirely anthropomorphic concept and does not apply to anything else other than our aesthetic tastes.

A crashed chandelier seems to me quite imperfect. Especially when I had gone to a great deal of trouble to line my dinner guest up for a good shagging.

1 Reply

What is free will?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know