rationalmind:

You still cannot use your freewill to break the law? I think you people should stop calling it freewill. Circumstancial will is better.

You decide to give people freewill so they won't act like robots, you tell them they can't use the freewill to break the law, hence forcing them to act like robots. Then why give the freewill at all? You could had just made them robots.

I said you still cannot use your freewill as an excuse to break the law.

See the purpose of giving them freewill here:

Joshthefirst: you still cannot use your freedom as an excuse to break the law

Freedom was given, not so that man could rebel and break laws, but so that man could have joy and purpose in doing good.

People who selfishly use their freedom to break the law will be punished eventually.

Freewill is just the supplier of intent and purpose. If your intents are right, you have use your freedom well and you will find joy and satisfaction in doing so.

If your intents are wrong, you will be punished for using your freewill to break the law.

Kabieosi:

Whatever "remb" is or what it means

Giving them freewill enabling them to think is the essence

Adam had accelerated knowledge and information upload

He weighed up the odds wrong

You want to trade places with Adam and go back in time

Be back in Eden?

Maybe confront God, there, in the garden and reject freewill & obedience.

Throw a tantrum, insisting having it your own way (i.e. eat the fruit and not pay the death-price)

What would you do rationalmind? If you were Adam

Don't kid yourself rationalmind, freewill or no freewill, you can't win.

Suck it up. Bwahahaha!!!

sorry, im on mobile. Remb is actually remember. If I were adam, I'll eat the fruit.

rationalmind:

sorry, im on mobile. Remb is actually remember. If I were adam, I'll eat the fruit.

why?

Honestly?

Joshthefirst: I said you still cannot use your freewill as an excuse to break the law.

See the purpose of giving them freewill here:

You are not saying anything new. Plug in "excuse" to my previous response. You haven't still answered anything.
You said freedom was giving not for man to break the law. You totally forget the reason man could even break the law was because freedom was given. Since he didn't want man to break the law, all he needed to do was not to give them the freedom at all.
I have replied everything u are saying and since you have nothing else to add, I rest my case.

Joshthefirst: why?

Honestly?

Out of curiousity

The Harbinger ~:
I made this post just now on another topic like this.

Since u believe god just knows our future plans yet gives us choice to make them, do u think gods knowledge of of our futrure plans must. Or must not come to pass?

rationalmind:

You are not saying anything new. Plug in "excuse" to my previous response. You haven't still answered anything.
You said freedom was giving not for man to break the law. You totally forget the reason man could even break the law was because freedom was given. Since he didn't want man to break the law, all he needed to do was not to give them the freedom at all.
I have replied everything u are saying and since you have nothing else to add, I rest my case.

smh. A robot cannot find joy and purpose. It seems you missed this:

Joshthefirst: and the reason the law can be upheld is because of freewill then? Without it, man would wallow in lawlessness?

This is pathetic

The Harbinger ~:
I made this post just now on another topic like this.

Since u believe god just knows our future plans yet gives us choice to make them, do u think gods knowledge of of our futrure plans must Or must not come to pass?

Joshthefirst: smh. A robot cannot find joy and purpose. It seems you missed this:















This is pathetic

what is wrong with you?

All that would be needed is to imprint joy and purpose in the robot and he will automatically find it.

frank3.16:


Since u believe god just knows our future plans yet gives us choice to make them, do u think gods knowledge of of our futrure plans must Or must not come to pass?

hehehe, as nnofaith once said and I quote, "The information you seek is classified"

rationalmind:

what is wrong with you?

All that would be needed is to imprint joy and purpose in the robot and he will automatically find it.

Smh.

Imprinting joy and purpose would mean giving it the joy of choosing to do good. And choosing to fulfill its makers plans.

Joshthefirst:

Smh.

Imprinting joy and purpose would mean giving it the joy of choosing to do good. And choosing to fulfill its makers plans.

The robot doesnt have to choose good to have Joy. The Joy can just be an intrinsic ability of the robot.

Imagine God created us like robots, all we would know is doing good and following him blindly as he commands.

This dead horse fit wake up ooo!!

frank3.16:


Since u believe god just knows our future plans yet gives us choice to make them, do u think gods knowledge of of our futrure plans must Or must not come to pass?

Gods knowledge of future plans are exclusive to the event of our actions.

They will come to pass, but not by his predestination, but by our choices. His knowledge is exclusive to the matter

Gods predestination only comes to pass in those who have totally subjected themselves to his will and action(choosing to do so).

Gods knowledge of the future does not mean he has predestinated every failure's failure, it actually establishes the fact that his predestination can in fact be ignored because of our freewill.

rationalmind:

sorry, im on mobile. Remb is actually remember. If I were adam, I'll eat the fruit

and be a-dam-ned? tut tut tut. SMH

Kabieosi:

and be a-dam-ned? tut tut tut. SMH

Thats all I've been saying since, I shouldn't be damned. How else would I had eaten it had he not put it there

rationalmind:

The robot doesnt have to choose good to have Joy. The Joy can just be an intrinsic ability of the robot.

Imagine God created us like robots, all we would know is doing good and following him blindly as he commands.

Robots do not run by themselves
Robots follow instructions or algorithms
As per robots doing good, well that is contentious,
as it depends on whoever the operator is and the intent when using the robot

rationalmind:

The robot doesnt have to choose good to have Joy. The Joy can just be an intrinsic ability of the robot.

Imagine God created us like robots, all we would know is doing good and following him blindly as he commands.

see how you contradict yourself.

rationalmind:

Thats all I've been saying since, I shouldn't be damned.

How else would I had eaten it had he not put it there

@rationalmind

You would have to be programmed to eat if meant to eat
or programmed against eating if not meant to eat

but the difference is you are not a virtual human or digital clone

No one is controlling your emotion or feeling

unlike a robot you are free, free to think, free to comply or not to comply etc etc

Free to make choices AND take responsibility for the actions.

.

rationalmind:

Out of curiousity

To add to this, am i not free to be curious and act out how feel based on how i fee basd on this curioUsityl?

Ihedinobi:
We'll see how true that is, shan't we? I'm going to bring in the Bible version and we'll see if your "picture" suffices


God created man.


He put him in a Garden.


He tells him to eat anything he likes except the fruit of one particular and distinct tree.


Man eats from that tree. That is not his "nature". He was designed with a natural bent to obedience to God.

Your omnipotent god couldn't create man with his true nature? How did disobedience come about, by accident?

Ihedinobi:
God returns and metes out the consequences He warned man about in the event of disobedience.


Yeah. The problem is that you don't know what the Bible says about the whole thing or you're just dishonest about it

And you call me dishonest??

Were there problems with the design, or was god unaware of the fact that so long as freewill exists sin will exist?

Ihedinobi:
"Nonsense", you say. Hehehe. I'll bet you mean my previous response to this same question on the other thread. I didn't seen you prove it so.

Of course, should He want to He will. Like I said previously, He made five loaves and two fish feed more than five thousand people at once according to the Bible. If that ain't making 1+1+1+1+1 > 5, I don't know what is.

And I said also that if you don't like the Bible example (EDIT, YOU THINK??), just take quantum physics and tell me how an electrons existence in two mutually exclusive states and places at the same time is logical. And since my argument is that God designed the electron, He demonstrates His Supremacy over "logic" there as well.

My car has 4 doors, therefore 1 + 1 = 3?

Nice to see you speak of "logic" and not proper logic. I did tell you I was talking of mathematical (read: abstract), objective truths, yes? So what does this have to do with anything? How does this affect the fact that 1 + 1 =2?

Now, a boson has properties that make it behave (apparently, as they are fields some would tell you, in other words some say that space is made up of....bosons, so you're asking how can space share space, see? But we can ignore that) counter intuitively to you, and then?

To elaborate, some schools of QM also assert that something comes from nothing, which can be written as 0!=0. Cool. They don't, however, write new math which says 0!=1. That's obviously silly. They build their math around probabilities. Note again: they never anywhere change the universal objective rule, 0=0. In order to work around that they account for both 0, 1 or x, but they never change the laws of math, that's impossible. They never write in their equations 1 + 1 = 3. Similar things are applied to equations dealing with bosons, no?

So, again, can god make 1+1=3? Can he write correct equations with 1+1=3?

Ihedinobi:
Finally, I have told you before, wiegraf, let us be clear what we are talking about. The dictionary defines "God" as the Supreme Absolute Authority over everything. If that is the meaning of "God", why do you think it makes any kind of sense to say that "God" is subject to anything?

The courts somewhere in abuja have absolute authority apparently, they still cannot divide by zero. That's impossible. I have absolute authority over my pipi, I still can't direct it into old skool jena jameson. Even if she were willing, as I have no time machine. Exactly when did absolute authority mean the ability to contradict logic?

Also, if he has absolute authority over everything, including us etc, exactly how is he not culpable for our sins? Especially if he can rewrite the laws, as you (comically) assert?

And note, your talk of god creating everything. Very simple question, if god created existence, then how did god come into existence?

rationalmind:

No. No one should be punished for exercising the ability God gave them.

The question was "Should anyone be punished at all?" Are you saying that there should be no prisons, police, sentences or jail terms for anyone who exercises this 'ability God gave them'?

Joshthefirst: see how you contradict yourself.

How?

Kabieosi:

Robots do not run by themselves
Robots follow instructions or algorithms
As per robots doing good, well that is contentious,
as it depends on whoever the operator is and the intent when using the robot

You people aren't saying anything new. God would had created us to follow his instructions or algorithms blindly.

Kabieosi:

@rationalmind

You would have to be programmed to eat if meant to eat
or programmed against eating if not meant to eat

but the difference is you are not a virtual human or digital clone

No one is controlling your emotion or feeling

unlike a robot you are free, free to think, free to comply or not to comply etc etc

Free to make choices AND take responsibility for the actions.

I so much like the bolded part. If I'm free to comply or not, I should not be forced to comply again. That's the point

frank3.16:


To add to this, am i not free to be curious and act out how feel based on how i fee basd on this curioUsityl?

I just tire bro. These people just open their mouth to say "freewill" without even knowing the implications.

Image123:

The question was "Should anyone be punished at all?" Are you saying that there should be no prisons, police, sentences or jail terms for anyone who exercises this 'ability God gave them'?

Why are you people so good at twisting arguments? What has punishment for crime gotten to do with Gods punishment for exercising our freewill.

The pple that wrote the criminal code were not omnipotent/omniscient. However, God is. he designed the whole process and scenario. if an omniscient/omnipotent god gives freewill to his creation he cannot purnish such a creation because;
1. he would have known his creation would excercise the freewill.
2. he designed the whole process to work the way it did cos he is omnipotent.

rationalmind:

Gosh!!! Are u sure someone didn't hack into your account this night? Something is definitely wrong somewhere.

1. You are the sophist here. If God doesn't punish anyone for exercising freewill, there would be nothing like hell.

So hell exists for one reason only: to punish anyone who dares to use free will? Your proof, please.

2. You asked of the proof that God punishes anyone for exercising freewill. The proof is hell. You asked what proof I have doing evil is the same as exercising freewill. How else would people had been able to do evil without freewill? If God had simply created us as robots, we would had followed him blindly. The reason people can do evil is because of freewill.

This is how the above sounds: Because you can't knock someone down with a car unless you're driving it, driving an automobile is the very same thing as knocking down hapless pedestrians with a car. That's obviously wrong. Agency is not the same as the act itself.

3. Stop this twisting please. What has morality gotten to do with the supposed consequences of doing good or evil?

Morality is simply about values. Good has a value. Evil has a value. Those values are embodied or brought home to us through the consequences of either. Therefore an expunging of consequences will only result in a demeaning of good and evil and result in amorality - the absence of morality.

Ihedinobi:
So hell exists for one reason only: to punish anyone who dares to use free will? Your proof, please.

Did God give us the freewill to live our lives including sinning or doing good?

If your answer is Yes, then God is punishing humans with hell for using their freewill.

Ihedinobi:
This is how the above sounds: Because you can't knock someone down with a car unless you're driving it, driving an automobile is the very same thing as knocking down hapless pedestrians with a car. That's obviously wrong. Agency is not the same as the act itself.

False analogy. Does not apply to using freewill to do evil.

I can use a car to transport people or ram people down with my freewill. It is my choice. Both are choices based on my freewill. This is a proper analogy for the issue.

Now, if I go to jail fro ramming people, it is my fault for exercising my freewill wrongly. No harm done.

However, if a judge knew with his omniscience that I will kill hundreds of people with my car and he had the legitimate power to stop me but he did nothing, he is an evil judge. Even as bad as the person doing the killing.

Ihedinobi:
Morality is simply about values. Good has a value. Evil has a value. Those values are embodied or brought home to us through the consequences of either. Therefore an expunging of consequences will only result in a demeaning of good and evil and result in amorality - the absence of morality.

Right to an extent