True, but what is the relevance? In some circumstances we have more freedom to choose, in others we have less and in some circumstances we have none.
Haha… How predictable was that.
I’m not sure this thread ever had any importance philosophically. And, yes it is a fallacious argumentum ad populem to state that (paraphrased as a conditional) if 24 pages of coments follow, then my claim is complicated. It may be just as true that if 24 pages of coments follow, then my claim is confused.
Some theologians claim that free will necessarily leads to the moral evil we see in the world and Spock claims that God could’ve created a world where people freely choose to do only good. What’s contested, at least in my mind, is whether or not the latter world is possible-or, if so, how one goes about achieving a world where free moral agents never will to do wrong. As Catholics, however, we believe that God* is* in the process of creating just that kind of world, popularly known as heaven but the same idea for all practical purposes.
No, we have the freedom to choose in ALL circumstances or we do not have free will. The fact that some situations will have only one choice which appears desirable to us at the time doesn’t mean other options didn’t exist. They existed and were rejected as not desirable. I can turn right at the highway on the way to work any time I want, but I choose not to because I don’t desire it. The option to turn right is always there, but it may as well not exist because it will never be realized under current external factors.
Will these irrelevant comments ever stop? If you are trapped in a locked room with an unbreakable window in a burning building - what are your options to fulfill your desire to survive?
Interesting.
These “irrelevant” comments will never stop because they are not irrelevant. You choose to deny their relevance much as your false dilemma here does, in dismissing alternatives by denying their existence. Your own comment has no place whatsoever in a discussion about free will because free will only applies when there is a decision of some sort with at least two possible options.
Lost its importance? Is this because it’s based on a basic logical error? I thought it had just gotten interesting (my vanity, I suppose) when I pointed out to you your commission of an equivocation - i.e., the invalidity of your argument! Certainly it explodes the ‘mathematical’ pretensions of your argument.
This is what you said before:
You used the word “ALL” in capitals. Your current post contradicts this.
Catholics beleive that God has a free will; so does Mary. Neither allowed their free will to lead them to evil acts. Therefore, free will, in and of itself, does not **necessarilly **lead to moral evil. Free will is a human attribute that makes us in the image of God.
OK, free will can be used for good or ill but, then, why did man sin?
Apparently it was not clear by use of the word choice that I implied a decision was possible. I apologize for not being clear. Let me spell it out in detail to remove any ambiguity:
Very clear now. And no objection. In 1) and 2) I would rather use the word “dilemma” instead of “decision”, but since I understand what you mean it would be just a little stylish modification.
Plato’s answer, like the famously quoted Samuel Johnson quip, “Ignorance, madame, pure ignorance” … is as good as any answer to me.
Adam & Eve were absent original sin, possessed free will and committed the first moral evil anyway. Did mans’ ignorance precede or follow his sin? Was man in some sense corrupt prior to OS?
Both.
it’s not necessary to be so insulting to another poster.
And I would suggest that if you have a presumption problem (which is apparent) that you both take your own advice as well as discipline yourself to reading more and more carefully of what you choose to respond to. Realize how much you don’t really know about what you think you see clearly.
