walterpthefirst Posted July 12 Author Share Posted July 12 7 minutes ago, mwc said: I see. Seems fair enough. However, in this situation it seems like it's important to push the issue. If you can't say how it would be determined after all these ages then it also seems fair to say that it wouldn't be something that could be determined in the moment. What I mean is that a sort of "gut feeling" as a guide, as we all know, varies widely by person and what's truth to one person is a lie to someone else and vice-versa. I seems like Eve shouldn't be expected to rely on it here. I would say given that Eve couldn't discern truth from gossip here unless we find some other way to sniff out the truth. mwc As the Devil's Advocate in this thread I'd just like to point out that according to the bible Satan wouldn't just be gossiping to Eve. He would be lying. Lying to deceive her. That's a whole different ballgame to gossip. John 8 : 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Genesis 3 : 13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” 2 Corinthians 11 : 3 But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted July 12 Author Share Posted July 12 37 minutes ago, Edgarcito said: I'm open to other definitions. Are you still open to your earlier definition of free will? If not, why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgarcito Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 2 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said: And yet the mental and moral condition of Adam and Eve was totally relevant to you, just a few days ago. She did not yet possess the understanding, the consequences, the results, the discernment of good and evil. Those were in the fruit. She did not download all that entails until she ate. Why the change, Ed? I've been agreeing with you and J this entire time. Yes, they had no moral knowledge outside of interactions with God and Satan. That knowledge was with God, with Satan, and in a piece of fruit. But the capacity to choose Walter is a function outside of our moral obligation. Again, per the definition. Why do you keep arguing when I know you understand this particular definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgarcito Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 Just now, walterpthefirst said: Are you still open to your earlier definition of free will? If not, why not? Show me where I've offered another???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted July 12 Author Share Posted July 12 1 minute ago, Edgarcito said: I've been agreeing with you and J this entire time. Yes, they had no moral knowledge outside of interactions with God and Satan. That knowledge was with God, with Satan, and in a piece of fruit. But the capacity to choose Walter is a function outside of our moral obligation. Again, per the definition. Why do you keep arguing when I know you understand this particular definition. Because you can't see that if they had no moral knowledge then they had no capacity to make a free choice. Free will isn't some kind of separate quality, different from knowledge. It is the knowledge of what you are choosing between. So, if they had no knowledge to use to make a decision, then their decision wasn't a freely made one. And again, you can't use your new definition until you've given a reason why you can. Please give the reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted July 12 Author Share Posted July 12 4 minutes ago, Edgarcito said: Show me where I've offered another???? Here are your two different definitions of free will, the older one which takes account of Adam and Eve's mental and moral condition and the newer one, where you say their mental and moral condition is irrelevant. The old one, which you wrote by yourself. She did not yet possess the understanding, the consequences, the results, the discernment of good and evil. Those were in the fruit. She did not download all that entails until she ate. The new one, which you got from the Encyclopaeida Brittanica. Free will is the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe1. It is the notional capacity or ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded2. Free will is also the ability to decide what to do independently of any outside influence3. With free will comes moral responsibility, which indicates that if we make a choice that is good, we deserve the resulting rewards4. That's two, totally different definitions of free will, Ed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgarcito Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 6 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said: Because you can't see that if they had no moral knowledge then they had no capacity to make a free choice. Free will isn't some kind of separate quality, different from knowledge. It is the knowledge of what you are choosing between. So, if they had no knowledge to use to make a decision, then their decision wasn't a freely made one. And again, you can't use your new definition until you've given a reason why you can. Please give the reason. Then what level of knowledge would she have needed to adequately discern? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgarcito Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 If already told you this goes back to our conversations regarding absolute but you didn't want to discuss that. It's all philosophy Walter..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted July 12 Author Share Posted July 12 9 minutes ago, Edgarcito said: Then what level of knowledge would she have needed to adequately discern? The knowledge that was held in the fruit. That's why the tree was called the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Before she and Adam ate they didn't have the knowledge to discern good from evil. After they ate, they did. So, being unable to discern good from evil, they couldn't make a free choice. And the bible confirms this. Genesis 3 : 22 And the Lord God said, “The man has NOW become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted July 12 Author Share Posted July 12 12 minutes ago, Edgarcito said: If already told you this goes back to our conversations regarding absolute but you didn't want to discuss that. It's all philosophy Walter..... These are your words and your first definition, Ed. Would you like me to explain to you how you wrote a good working definition of free will with these words? She did not yet possess the understanding, the consequences, the results, the discernment of good and evil. Those were in the fruit. She did not download all that entails until she ate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted July 12 Super Moderator Share Posted July 12 1 hour ago, Edgarcito said: And I've stated that I don't know why she accepted gossip, essentially, over truth. Do you think, maybe, it might have been because she didn't know the difference? You know, because of the whole not knowing the difference between good and evil? Come on, Ed. You're smarter than this. She didn't choose gossip over truth. For her, there was no such thing as gossip versus truth. She only understood words, not the morality or motivation behind them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgarcito Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 16 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said: Do you think, maybe, it might have been because she didn't know the difference? You know, because of the whole not knowing the difference between good and evil? Come on, Ed. You're smarter than this. She didn't choose gossip over truth. For her, there was no such thing as gossip versus truth. She only understood words, not the morality or motivation behind them. It's not my definition. Ed didn't write the definition for Britannica or wherever it was derived. Aside from that, I'm going to consider the rest of the story. Thx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgarcito Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 33 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said: These are your words and your first definition, Ed. Would you like me to explain to you how you wrote a good working definition of free will with these words? She did not yet possess the understanding, the consequences, the results, the discernment of good and evil. Those were in the fruit. She did not download all that entails until she ate. That is not a definition of free will nor my attempt at one. Thx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted July 12 Super Moderator Share Posted July 12 54 minutes ago, Edgarcito said: Then what level of knowledge would she have needed to adequately discern? In order to adequately discern between good and evil, she would have needed... um... the knowledge of good and evil. But she could not have that knowledge until she ate the fruit; and her lack of knowledge impeded her ability to choose. This impediment contradicts the definition of free will; and therefore, whatever Eve had was not free will. No matter how you choose to slice, dice, and splice it, Ed, the definition of free will cannot be applied to Adam and Eve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said: As the Devil's Advocate in this thread I'd just like to point out that according to the bible Satan wouldn't just be gossiping to Eve. He would be lying. Lying to deceive her. That's a whole different ballgame to gossip. You're not wrong, but it can also be a little easier to move on a smoother path. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted July 12 Super Moderator Share Posted July 12 36 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said: Do you think, maybe, it might have been because she didn't know the difference? You know, because of the whole not knowing the difference between good and evil? Come on, Ed. You're smarter than this. She didn't choose gossip over truth. For her, there was no such thing as gossip versus truth. She only understood words, not the morality or motivation behind them. 7 minutes ago, Edgarcito said: It's not my definition. Ed didn't write the definition for Britannica or wherever it was derived. Aside from that, I'm going to consider the rest of the story. Thx. Well, I certainly appreciate your valiant attempt to address my point here, Ed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted July 12 Author Share Posted July 12 2 minutes ago, Edgarcito said: That is not a definition of free will nor my attempt at one. Thx. Actually it is. You just haven't realized it. Here's how it works... She did not yet possess the understanding, the consequences, the results, the discernment of good and evil. Those were in the fruit. She did not download all that entails until she ate. People who can discern good from evil, who can understand what they are choosing between and who can anticipate the consequences and results of their choices possess free will. People who cannot discern good from evil, who cannot understand what they are choosing between and who cannot anticipate the consequences and results of their choices do not possess free will. Free will is the sum of all these abilities. So, without understanding this Ed, when you wrote that Eve possessed none of these things you were saying that she didn't possess free will until she ate the fruit. You placed these qualities in the fruit, while affirming that they were not in Eve until she ate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted July 12 Author Share Posted July 12 2 minutes ago, mwc said: You're not wrong, but it can also be a little easier to move on a smoother path. mwc Just calling it as it's written, mwc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgarcito Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 I think the Bible describes the creation at this point as very good. So if they had a "will" then it would have been a "very good" will, however you would like to view that. Then you hand impendences both from God and Satan through interactions that we gather. So I guess I'm going to view it as was the hinderance to their "very good will" came from Satan. And it follows that unless God removed what A&E consumed, we are privy to that knowledge. And the question....is our will now "bound" or "very good". I think we know the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted July 12 Super Moderator Share Posted July 12 So now we're changing it from "free" will to "very good" will. But this does nothing more than kick the can further down the street, given that neither Adam nor Eve had any understanding of "good." let alone "very good." You seem to conveniently forget that without knowledge of good and evil, they also could not have had any understanding of motivation or morality. Their "will," as they understood it, would have simply been "will," without any of the attributes of "goodwill" or "ill-will." And whatever actions they took, or decisions they made, would have been completely devoid of both malevolence and good intention. Without knowledge, without understanding, they are incapable of assuming the intentional stance on anything, whether it be listening to one being over another or eating fruit from this tree instead of that one. Moreover, if Eve were capable of having a "very good will," then her intentions and motivations would have also been "very good." She listened to the serpent with the best of intentions. She ate the fruit with the best of intentions. But this also means that she lied to the serpent, felt pride and envy, and desired what god had forbidden... all with the best of intentions. She meant no harm by any of it, only goodwill. And not just goodwill, but "very good will." That doesn't seem to square off with your insistence that Eve was to blame for her "sins". If, on the other hand, Eve was created sinful (which you still have not refuted), then the question of "will" answers itself. She had no will of her own and simply did as she was programed, at least with regard to sin and the fruit. Similarly, following Walt's contention that god bound her to disobedience, her will is either non-existent or irrelevant, because god's will was what ultimately mattered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgarcito Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 52 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said: So now we're changing it from "free" will to "very good" will. But this does nothing more than kick the can further down the street, given that neither Adam nor Eve had any understanding of "good." let alone "very good." You seem to conveniently forget that without knowledge of good and evil, they also could not have had any understanding of motivation or morality. Their "will," as they understood it, would have simply been "will," without any of the attributes of "goodwill" or "ill-will." And whatever actions they took, or decisions they made, would have been completely devoid of both malevolence and good intention. Without knowledge, without understanding, they are incapable of assuming the intentional stance on anything, whether it be listening to one being over another or eating fruit from this tree instead of that one. Moreover, if Eve were capable of having a "very good will," then her intentions and motivations would have also been "very good." She listened to the serpent with the best of intentions. She ate the fruit with the best of intentions. But this also means that she lied to the serpent, felt pride and envy, and desired what god had forbidden... all with the best of intentions. She meant no harm by any of it, only goodwill. And not just goodwill, but "very good will." That doesn't seem to square off with your insistence that Eve was to blame for her "sins". If, on the other hand, Eve was created sinful (which you still have not refuted), then the question of "will" answers itself. She had no will of her own and simply did as she was programed, at least with regard to sin and the fruit. Similarly, following Walt's contention that god bound her to disobedience, her will is either non-existent or irrelevant, because god's will was what ultimately mattered. I think you were the one that said their free will was violated. You said free meant unimpeded....no hinderances. Therefore, the input from God and Satan would act as hinderances one way or another with their lack of knowledge. God's input was straightforward. Satan's was a temptation. She was capable of "will" and I used YOUR definition of free for the rest. Additionally, I qualified the statement with "however you would like to view that". And per Walter's request, I used what it had to say about it from the Bible. So your explanation fails on multiple levels along with the age-old argument used by heathens that "they didn't know". They had free will and it was Satan that did it. But you will still say it's God's. Well brother, He gave you His level of wisdom about good and evil and you are still picking incorrectly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted July 12 Author Share Posted July 12 9 minutes ago, Edgarcito said: I think you were the one that said their free will was violated. You said free meant unimpeded....no hinderances. Therefore, the input from God and Satan would act as hinderances one way or another with their lack of knowledge. God's input was straightforward. Satan's was a temptation. She was capable of "will" and I used YOUR definition of free for the rest. Additionally, I qualified the statement with "however you would like to view that". And per Walter's request, I used what it had to say about it from the Bible. So your explanation fails on multiple levels along with the age-old argument used by heathens that "they didn't know". They had free will and it was Satan that did it. But you will still say it's God's. Well brother, He gave you His level of wisdom about good and evil and you are still picking incorrectly... Ok then Ed, I'll go with what you say. That they had free will, but Satan impeded it. Then at the time that Eve actually made her choice (after communing with Satan) her free will had been impeded by him. That's what you're saying, isn't it? That she had free will, but lost it when talking to Satan and so she didn't make a free choice. At the time when it mattered, when she was deciding, Satan had impeded her free will. So, it really doesn't matter if she was created with free will or not. Is that what you're saying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted July 12 Author Share Posted July 12 And if I go with your argument, that Eve had free will, but lost it when Satan influenced her, then I'm going to ask you the $1,000,000 question. Who was ultimately responsible for allowing her to be influenced by Satan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgarcito Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 9 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said: Ok then Ed, I'll go with what you say. That they had free will, but Satan impeded it. Then at the time that Eve actually made her choice (after communing with Satan) her free will had been impeded by him. That's what you're saying, isn't it? That she had free will, but lost it when talking to Satan and so she didn't make a free choice. At the time when it mattered, when she was deciding, Satan had impeded her free will. So, it really doesn't matter if she was created with free will or not. Is that what you're saying? So we have unimpeded will, free will. Yes, I gather it has eternal implications for reasons we don't understand. If you however Walter, understand why we are all here doing what we do, please share. I'm hoping and trusting that we all return to gardening with acute awareness of the potential of communing with evil. Rain and geosmin are such better smells than rot, decay, and death.... Yes, God was responsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted July 12 Author Share Posted July 12 Does the bible say that Adam and Eve could discern the goodness of god's creation? Nope. Genesis 1 : 27 - 31 27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. 28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” 29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so. 31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day. In verse 31 we read that only god saw that all he had made was very good. Not Adam, nor Eve. Which means that even if he had made their will 'very good' as you assert, they would not have been able to know this. Only after they ate did they come to understand and know good and evil. And by then it was too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts