Free Will

[Roz]

And let me just add:  End3 does not have the courage or intellectual capacity (due to placing the christian mental block on himself) to answer BAA's separate post made just for him:

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/63243-something-for-end3-to-resolve/#.U6pQnrGE5yI

 

50+ views and counting, and not one word.  This is christianity.  Just like all the other christians, they cannot give any reasonable answer to ex-c questions.  No, it's not because ex-c's know it all, it's the mental block that christianity places on people.  Their ability to reason is automatically stunted when questioned about their religion.

[Ravenstar]

god is an (imaginary) abusive and negligent parent. THAT is what is apparent.

 

Reminds me of a retelling of a client by Scott Peck about 'evil' parents who re-gifted their surviving son with the rifle his brother had killed himself with… for christmas.

 

it's abhorrent. And it's obviously abhorrent once you take the god goggles off.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

End3, Stop taking my words out of context.  I never said, nor do I think, that if they had been properly informed it would have interfered with their free will.  You are lying.  As a matter of fact, I have stated precisely the opposite.  

[Guest end3]

End3, Stop taking my words out of context.  I never said, nor do I think, that if they had been properly informed it would have interfered with their free will.  You are lying.  As a matter of fact, I have stated precisely the opposite.

So attaching a punishment to his information base doesn't count for some type of "informed"? Please clarify for me what counts as informed and what does not. This is ridiculous.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

End3, Stop taking my words out of context.  I never said, nor do I think, that if they had been properly informed it would have interfered with their free will.  You are lying.  As a matter of fact, I have stated precisely the opposite.

So attaching a punishment to his information base doesn't count for some type of "informed"? Please clarify for me what counts as informed and what does not. This is ridiculous.

 

What's ridiculous here End3 is that you're being dumb on purpose.  I know this because in the conversations I have had with you I have seen a mind keener than what is being displayed here.

 

You claim that information would have biased them and interferred with their free will.  But as BAA pointed out, at some point you were informed about jesus.  So, by your own claim, you could not have accepted jesus as your savior by your own free will. 

 

Stop intentionally misunderstanding me.  Attaching a punishment REMOVES free will from the equation.  Attaching a punishment HAS NOTHING TO DO with informed or not informed.

[Guest end3]

I'm not talking about me and Jesus. I'm talking strictly Adam. Truthfully, I'm not intentionally trying to misunderstand. With regard to Adam alone, people are saying that he was not informed....but as I hear you, you are saying if he had been informed that would have violated his freedom to choose. Again, I am not intentionally trying to misunderstand nor put words or any of that.

 

So as I see it, God tells Adam, "here is your stuff, animals, trees, helper" and says "don't eat of that tree or you will die".

 

This is why I asked you if information about the tree violates, in your opinion, Adam's free will....to which you responded "no".

 

So in my mind I'm thinking, ok, Adam has free will according to the Prof's opinion.

 

Then everyone chimes in with "they weren't informed". Yet had they been informed about hell, then I understood you saying free will was off the table.

 

So I am betting I am STILL misunderstanding somehow, so please, be patient and tell me where I am missing everyone's point. Again, I think the functionality of free will is gone once Adam violates it.....just my thoughts.

[florduh]

According to the legend.....

 

God: Adam, if you eat this you die.

 

Adam: Die? What's that?

 

God: If you eat this you die.

 

Snake: Go ahead, you won't die.

 

Eve: Go ahead, you won't die.

 

Adam: Well, it's two to one. I'm curious about this death thing anyway; I've never seen it. Yum! Oh fuck, I'm nekkid!!!

[Guest end3]

I re-read and believe that Adam has no idea that there are only two options/paths based on his decision. I find that irrelevant regarding did Adam have free will. And again, at some point, had God said too much, Adam's choice would have been skewed.

[Guest end3]

According to the legend.....

 

God: Adam, if you eat this you die.

 

Adam: Die? What's that?

 

God: If you eat this you die.

 

Snake: Go ahead, you won't die.

 

Eve: Go ahead, you won't die.

 

Adam: Well, it's two to one. I'm curious about this death thing anyway; I've never seen it. Yum! Oh fuck, I'm nekkid!!!

Lol, was worth the read.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Okay, End3, allow me to clarify my position.  Adam was told he would die if he ate the fruit.  That did not violate his free will because, as BAA notes, Adam did not have free will in the sense that we have.  He did not have it as a result of his not being fully informed about the choice he was being asked to make.  No mention of Original Sin or eternal hellfire was ever made by god, as we discussed some time ago in the thread "god Is A Liar".

 

On a note which is completely unrelated to Adam, the addition of a disproportionate punishment removes free will from the equation.  I cannot claim that my son has free will if I insist he choose the kind of candy I want him to choose or face a beating.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Here's another thought for you, End.  I let my son make mistakes so that he will learn to make good decisions.  But I do my best to see to it that no harm comes to him, through a mistake.  I warn him of possible consequences, inform him what could result, and then let him decide.  When he makes a mistake and sees the result, we have a chance to discuss what a better choice would have been.  It's kind of like a "test run".

 

Adam and Eve were not given any test runs before making the ultimate decision.  god could have said, "If you eat this fruit, a wasp will sting you."  Then, if they chose to do so, god could have upped the ante and said, "If you eat this fruit, a snake will bite you and you will get violently ill."  He could have slowly worked his way up to saying, "Okay, this time it's for realsies!  If you eat this fruit, you will die, in sin, and go to hell; and so will all of your children."  Even if god had already decided that he wasn't going to tell them about sin and hell, he could have, at least, tried to teach them a little about making good decisions before he hung the fate of the nations around their necks.

[bornagainathiest]

I'm not talking about me and Jesus. I'm talking strictly Adam.

 

End,

You are making three linked claims. 1, that Adam had free will.  2, that you have free will.  3, that being informed about a decision biases a person's freedom of choice.  Therefore, since both you and Adam were informed (he by God's warning and you by the Bible), your choices were biased.  That applies to both of you.  So you can't say that the informed decision Adam made is different from the informed decision you made.  There is NO difference.  That's why I pointed this out yesterday.

 

Truthfully, I'm not intentionally trying to misunderstand. With regard to Adam alone, people are saying that he was not informed....but as I hear you, you are saying if he had been informed that would have violated his freedom to choose. Again, I am not intentionally trying to misunderstand nor put words or any of that.

 

That's because you, me and the Prof are getting tangled up over what the word, 'informed' means.

 

So as I see it, God tells Adam, "here is your stuff, animals, trees, helper" and says "don't eat of that tree or you will die".

 

This is why I asked you if information about the tree violates, in your opinion, Adam's free will....to which you responded "no".

 

Exactly.  No.

 

So in my mind I'm thinking, ok, Adam has free will according to the Prof's opinion.

 

No he doesn't.  In the Prof's opinion Adam is informed of only the penalty of disobeying God.

That's totally different from being informed about and understanding what he's supposed to be deciding between.  See the difference?

 

Then everyone chimes in with "they weren't informed". Yet had they been informed about hell, then I understood you saying free will was off the table.

 

No.  Adam alone was informed by God that he'd DIE.   This is Adam's penalty - NOT what he had to decide between.

The penalty is not the same as the choice to be made.  Do you see the difference?

 

Even then, Adam couldn't have understood what God's penalty was.

He's an innocent.  He's never seen or known about death.  There was no physical or spiritual death in Eden until Adam made his choice.  So, before he made his choice, he had no way of understanding what God was telling him.  And as I've said before, if he couldn't understand the choice, then he had no free will to make the choice with.  Free will only comes with understanding.  Which is why innocent babes cannot exercise their free will to make proper decisions.  Do you see it now?

 

So I am betting I am STILL misunderstanding somehow, so please, be patient and tell me where I am missing everyone's point. Again, I think the functionality of free will is gone once Adam violates it.....just my thoughts.

 

Adam can't violate something he never had, End.

 

That's the whole point of this.

God never explained WHAT Adam was to decide between.  Even if God had explained it to him, he still wouldn't have understood.  That's because he was an innocent ...all the way up to the moment he ate the fruit.  You can't explain good and evil to someone who has no knowledge of good and evil.  Poor Adam was caught in the worst kind of catch-22 trap!  To understand what God meant by good and evil, he'd have to disobey God's command and suffer God's penalty.

 

Do you see how Adam was up against it?

He couldn't make an informed choice, because God couldn't inform him without changing him from an innocent to someone with knowledge of good and evil.  Why?  Because unless he understood good and evil, Adam wasn't making an informed choice.  To make a proper choice Adam doesn't just have to be informed of the penalty - he's also got to be informed of what good and evil were.

 

Do you see it now?

God can't tell Adam about good and evil and Adam can't make a proper choice UNTIL he knows about good and evil.  Just knowing the penalty isn't making a proper and informed choice.

[bornagainathiest]

Here's another thought for you, End.  I let my son make mistakes so that he will learn to make good decisions.  But I do my best to see to it that no harm comes to him, through a mistake.  I warn him of possible consequences, inform him what could result, and then let him decide.  When he makes a mistake and sees the result, we have a chance to discuss what a better choice would have been.  It's kind of like a "test run".

 

Adam and Eve were not given any test runs before making the ultimate decision.  god could have said, "If you eat this fruit, a wasp will sting you."  Then, if they chose to do so, god could have upped the ante and said, "If you eat this fruit, a snake will bite you and you will get violently ill."  He could have slowly worked his way up to saying, "Okay, this time it's for realsies!  If you eat this fruit, you will die, in sin, and go to hell; and so will all of your children."  Even if god had already decided that he wasn't going to tell them about sin and hell, he could have, at least, tried to teach them a little about making good decisions before he hung the fate of the nations around their necks.

 

Point of order, Prof.

 

Test runs sound like a good idea, but the way you've outlined them, they'd fail too.  Here's why.

 

God:

"If you eat this fruit a wasp will sting you."

 

Adam:

"I don't understand what a wasp sting is.  Nor do I understand what it will feel like if a wasp stings me.  Will I enjoy that sensation?"

 

See the problem?

You, me and End know from experience that wasp stings are painful - Adam didn't.  He's an innocent.  This innocence is THE reason why he couldn't know or understand in advance what any kind of deterrent meant.  This why God couldn't explain good and evil and death to Adam without changing him from his state of perfect innocence.  Adam's innocence is the perfect barrier that not even God can overcome.

 

Adam's innocence destroys the possibility of him making an informed choice about anything.

 

See what I mean?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

Here's another thought for you, End.  I let my son make mistakes so that he will learn to make good decisions.  But I do my best to see to it that no harm comes to him, through a mistake.  I warn him of possible consequences, inform him what could result, and then let him decide.  When he makes a mistake and sees the result, we have a chance to discuss what a better choice would have been.  It's kind of like a "test run".

 

Adam and Eve were not given any test runs before making the ultimate decision.  god could have said, "If you eat this fruit, a wasp will sting you."  Then, if they chose to do so, god could have upped the ante and said, "If you eat this fruit, a snake will bite you and you will get violently ill."  He could have slowly worked his way up to saying, "Okay, this time it's for realsies!  If you eat this fruit, you will die, in sin, and go to hell; and so will all of your children."  Even if god had already decided that he wasn't going to tell them about sin and hell, he could have, at least, tried to teach them a little about making good decisions before he hung the fate of the nations around their necks.

 

Point of order, Prof.

 

Test runs sound like a good idea, but the way you've outlined them, they'd fail too.  Here's why.

 

God:

"If you eat this fruit a wasp will sting you."

 

Adam:

"I don't understand what a wasp sting is.  Nor do I understand what it will feel like if a wasp stings me.  Will I enjoy that sensation?"

 

See the problem?

You, me and End know from experience that wasp stings are painful - Adam didn't.  He's an innocent.  This innocence is THE reason why he couldn't know or understand in advance what any kind of deterrent meant.  This why God couldn't explain good and evil and death to Adam without changing him from his state of perfect innocence.  Adam's innocence is the perfect barrier that not even God can overcome.

 

Adam's innocence destroys the possibility of him making an informed choice about anything.

 

See what I mean?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

I see what you mean, but my point is that god could have allowed both Adam and Eve to experience the pain of making a few bad, but not overly destructive, choices before expecting them to make the BIG choice.  After eating a few apples and experiencing the consequences, perhaps they both would have said, "You know, it's just really not worth it to eat this fruit." 

 

Even if god couldn't explain evil to them in any meaningful way, he could have demonstrated causality.

[Guest end3]

I'm just frustrated because y'all seemingly want it both ways....either to violate the rigid definition or have Carol Marol show Adam what was behind Door #2.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

What rigid definition is being violated?  You lost me.

[Neverlandrut]

The free will excuse is a red herring. If god is all-knowing and powerful, then there is no such thing as human free will, only god's will. If god is all-knowing/powerful, then we cannot be justly blamed or praised for anything. It's all god's fault.

[mymistake]

I'm just frustrated because y'all seemingly want it both ways....either to violate the rigid definition or have Carol Marol show Adam what was behind Door #2.

 

 

You are being disingenuous for Jesus.  It's okay.  I've been there and done that.  Do what you have to in order to keep your faith.

[bornagainathiest]

To End3 and the Prof...

 

We're getting knotted up over the words, 'informed'  and 'innocence' here, so I'll cut to the chase.

.

.

.

 

Adam cannot be informed about his options to make a free choice between them and stay an innocent.  

 

The act of being informed about them and understanding his choices, destroys his innocence.

 

It's really that simple.

.

.

.

 

Ok, he can be informed about the penalty he'll suffer, but how can he possibly understand what death is?

 

Without understanding what death is, the penalty is meaningless.  

It has no power to change his mind and affect his decision. For that to work, he'd have to understand that death is something he should fear and avoid.  But he's an innocent - without fear.

 

Remember the wasp sting?  "Will I enjoy it?", says Adam, in his total innocence.

Death is an outcome he cannot understand and so it holds no fear for him.  So there's no point God warning him about something he doesn't understand.

.

.

.

Once again, Adam cannot be informed about things he doesn't understand without losing his innocence.

 

This is the key point you should both try and understand.

 

If it helps, try and think like the totally-innocent Adam, instead of thinking like 21st century people.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Here's another thought for you, End.  I let my son make mistakes so that he will learn to make good decisions.  But I do my best to see to it that no harm comes to him, through a mistake.  I warn him of possible consequences, inform him what could result, and then let him decide.  When he makes a mistake and sees the result, we have a chance to discuss what a better choice would have been.  It's kind of like a "test run".

 

Adam and Eve were not given any test runs before making the ultimate decision.  god could have said, "If you eat this fruit, a wasp will sting you."  Then, if they chose to do so, god could have upped the ante and said, "If you eat this fruit, a snake will bite you and you will get violently ill."  He could have slowly worked his way up to saying, "Okay, this time it's for realsies!  If you eat this fruit, you will die, in sin, and go to hell; and so will all of your children."  Even if god had already decided that he wasn't going to tell them about sin and hell, he could have, at least, tried to teach them a little about making good decisions before he hung the fate of the nations around their necks.

 

Point of order, Prof.

 

Test runs sound like a good idea, but the way you've outlined them, they'd fail too.  Here's why.

 

God:

"If you eat this fruit a wasp will sting you."

 

Adam:

"I don't understand what a wasp sting is.  Nor do I understand what it will feel like if a wasp stings me.  Will I enjoy that sensation?"

 

See the problem?

You, me and End know from experience that wasp stings are painful - Adam didn't.  He's an innocent.  This innocence is THE reason why he couldn't know or understand in advance what any kind of deterrent meant.  This why God couldn't explain good and evil and death to Adam without changing him from his state of perfect innocence.  Adam's innocence is the perfect barrier that not even God can overcome.

 

Adam's innocence destroys the possibility of him making an informed choice about anything.

 

See what I mean?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

I see what you mean, but my point is that god could have allowed both Adam and Eve to experience the pain of making a few bad, but not overly destructive, choices before expecting them to make the BIG choice.  After eating a few apples and experiencing the consequences, perhaps they both would have said, "You know, it's just really not worth it to eat this fruit." 

 

Even if god couldn't explain evil to them in any meaningful way, he could have demonstrated causality.

 

 

Not without destroying Adam's innocence, as I've just addressed.

[Guest end3]

 

I'm just frustrated because y'all seemingly want it both ways....either to violate the rigid definition or have Carol Marol show Adam what was behind Door #2.

 

 

You are being disingenuous for Jesus.  It's okay.  I've been there and done that.  Do what you have to in order to keep your faith.

 

No I'm not MM. Adam was uninformed but free.

[bornagainathiest]

I can see where you and I are diverging Prof.

 

You are adding possibilities to the Genesis narrative... possibilities that only make sense in your knowledgeable and informed frame of reference.

 

I'm confining myself to what the text says and no more.

I'm sticking to Adam's total innocence, because that's what in scripture.  I'm not exploring what God could or should have done.  Only to what it says there, the internal logic of that and no more.  This is why we are disagreeing on what being informed means.  According to Genesis Adam was innocent.  Therefore, his condition of innocence HAS to stand and stay unchanged in any explanation or argument based only on the text.  

 

By introducing new elements into the argument Prof, you are changing things from their original condition.

I don't agree with that.  We can't fully  understand and appreciate how unworkable the Fall really is unless we examine it in it's original form.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

I'm just frustrated because y'all seemingly want it both ways....either to violate the rigid definition or have Carol Marol show Adam what was behind Door #2.

 

 

You are being disingenuous for Jesus.  It's okay.  I've been there and done that.  Do what you have to in order to keep your faith.

 

No I'm not MM. Adam was uninformed but free.

 

 

Free to choose between options he didn't understand?

 

Free to be unafraid of death... because he didn't understand what it was?

 

Stop thinking like End3 and start thinking like an innocent who doesn't understand good, evil and death.

[Neverlandrut]

 

 

I'm just frustrated because y'all seemingly want it both ways....either to violate the rigid definition or have Carol Marol show Adam what was behind Door #2.

 

You are being disingenuous for Jesus. It's okay. I've been there and done that. Do what you have to in order to keep your faith.

No I'm not MM. Adam was uninformed but free.

Not possible. This is a contradiction End3.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Out of curiosity, BAA, do you really believe Adam and Eve were innocent?