The existence of free will as proposed by the bible (Cont.debate)

As this is a continuation of a previous debate [1], I will make a more sophisticated case for free will with the Christian God. After I make my case, I will address the Instigator's arguments and, characters permitting, a few things from our previous debate.God is all-knowing. He knows everything, even what will happen in the future (1 John 3:20, Daniel 2:45). He knows our deepest desires and feelings. He created us, so He literally knows everything about us.There are also times in which God has set things into motion, which could not be changed. He chose Jeremiah from the womb to be his prophet (Jeremiah 1:5), and even sending Jesus to the cross was a part of His plan (2 Timothy 1:9). However, these were exceptions and not the rule.When God created Adam and Eve, he planted a tree in the Garden of Eden called the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, which He forbade them to eat from. He knew they would eat from it anyway, but He didn't force them do it. They had the free will not to eat from the tree, and didn't have to do it. God knew they would anyway. (Genesis 2-3).God may know the future, and may be able to know with accuracy what will happen but it doesn't mean things must happen that way. For example, if I know you're going to the store tomorrow your plans may chance and you end up not going. Going to the store wasn't set in stone just because you knew you were going to go. The difference would be that God would know if your plans are going to change, or if you just decide not to go and put it off until tomorrow. You are still free to make those choices, God just knows which choice you are going to make and whether you'll change them or not.There are also instances in the Scriptures where God had planned to do something, but relented and didn't follow through. For instance, after Jonah witnessed to the Ninevites, God did not follow through on their destruction due to the fact that they repented of their wickedness (Jonah 3). God, of course, knew that the Ninevites would repent when Jonah went and revealed their sinfulness to them, but had they not repented they would have been destroyed. They were free not to repent.Our sin will also condemn us to an eternity in Hell. God could not hold us accountable for our sin if we were not responsible for committing them. We would not be responsible for committing them if we had no choice whether or not to commit them.So as you can see, the existence of God does not preclude having a free will. Knowing what will happen is not the same as forcing something to happen.I will now respond to the Instigator's argument:Whether or not animals have a free will is a complicated question. Humans and animals are different; humans are inherently moral and rational creatures, with the ability to reason and understand the world around us.Children must be taught to understand morality; if you put candy in one bowl and broccoli in another bowl in front of a child, they will go right for the candy unless they have been taught to go for the broccoli because it's better for them.A dog, on the other hand, can never be taught morality. Every animal is different; some have a preference for toys, some have a preference for dog treats, some have a preference for slippers. A dog can be taught to avoid chewing on slippers, but not because chewing on someone else's slippers is wrong. The dog learns not to chew on your slippers because you don't like it, and you control the food, treats, and shock collar.A dog does have free will, in that if you put two pairs of slippers in front of him, he can choose which one to chew up. However, if you bought the dog a chew toy, he may decide to chew your slippers until you train him not to. Or he may just find the chew toy more appealing and chew on it. Dogs do not have free will because of any moral implications. We do. But they still have free choice. Even if you are training them not to chew on your slippers, they still have the choice whether to obey and be rewarded, or to disobey and get another shock (or to be put outside).I must confess I'm not sure what most of the rest of your argument has to do with the topic at hand. You seem to indicate that because we can choose in the first place, we have no choice but to choose, and therefore our very choices are not freely made because we are forced to make them. Please correct me if I'm wrong. The problem with this philosophy is that there's no inherent punishment for making any choices, just by virtue that we are choosing. If a bank robber holds a gun to a bank teller's head and tells her to put the money in the bag, she still has a free choice. She can disobey and take a bullet to the head, or comply and give the robber his money. No jury would convict that bank teller because she acquiesced under duress. If she hadn't complied, she would have been killed. However, even though some choices have negative consequences, there is no negative consequence just by virtue of being able to choose. In fact, the basic ability to choose helps us to grow and mature.No one is born a Theist. it is more likely to be born an atheist, because you have to learn about a particular religious discipline, or question your existence in the universe in order to realize there is a God. There is every chance an atheist can become a Theist. God just knows who will come to believe and who won't. He doesn't force belief on anyone. He doesn't force anyone to love Him. That would negate the very essence of love. What makes love so special is that we choose to love someone. Would you want someone to love you because they were forced to?I fail to see how it is possible for a baby to pass the MCAT test, or any other test. You have to learn about the discipline before you can hope to pass a fundamental test in that discipline.While my faith in God makes me pro-life, I am also pro-life because of science and reason. This is actually an irrelevant question because whether or not a baby who dies goes to Heaven has nothing to do with free will. It's always sad when a child dies. There is good Biblical evidence to suppose that babies who die go to Heaven, but if they do, so what? That doesn't give us a right to kill unborn children just because they'll probably go to Heaven. We have no right to kill any innocent human. But again, this is irrelevant.In your last round of the previous debate, you mentioned someone with a chicken allergy. Someone with that allergy can still choose to eat chicken if they wish, but they must be prepared to deal with the consequences. A teenager who has a habit of breaking out after eating chocolate is still free to do so. Some teenagers are willing to risk a pimple to consume chocolate. We all have choices, and some consequences are more dangerous and long-lasting than others. That doesn't mean we are not free to choose.I look forward to our next round.[1] http://www.debate.org...;