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

Thank you so much for this debate, it has been a great experience, and a wonderful time! This is the last round so I will have to sum up my concluding remarks I would like to clarify my last point, because it may have come across fuzzyWhy I stated "one may assume you should have stated COMPLETE ACCURACY' allow me to clear up why I was thrown off. Your statements"Yes, that should really go without saying as the word accuracy, itself, means without error. ""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"WHICH IS SAYINGGod may know without error what will happen, but it does not mean it will happen that way. (WHICH IMPLIES)GOD MAY KNOW EVERYTHING, BUT IT DOESNT MEAN HE KNOWS EVERYTHING. This is a dodgy argument where you're trying to defend both sides. I'll have to take that as you saying that god doesn't know which seems like that is contradictory to your following statement. "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. "////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////I think I may have missed my mark on my explanation of why I believe this is wrongYOUR STATEMENT"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. ")"I saidin this example; god is seemingly always relenting from enforcing punishments IN EVERY INSTANCE that a fork in the road may lead to a destructive or constructive path, in your view god is relenting punishment for all of us, all the time. "To accurately described my point I should have stated, God is always (relenting, or continuing) To (punish, or reward) IN EVERY INSTANCE. If I do something for which I am going to repent for, God wouldn't be considered to be "not following through with his plans", because I repented. He would be considered to be following through on his original plan to not give punishment for, what has been repented for, without exception. This is our last round so I hope that it is understood that if this was supposed to be a scripture that proves that god can change his mind, then this only proves my point as to how god must follow through. //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////Now for some more conflicting statements"Humans are inherently moral, and rational creatures, with the ability to reason and understand the world around us. "Here you say are inherently morality and rationality"Children must be taught to understand morality"Here you try to not consider Children Humans, and say morality is acquired through being taught. ("There is nothing conflicting in my statements. Humans have the inherent ability to reason within ourselves, but we still must be taught right from wrong. That's why we have parents. "Here you say we inherit the ability to reason, but your explanation of morality is if we are lucky enough to have parents then they can teach us. What if our parents are morally bankrupt, or there are no parents to speak of. Then where do you inherit morality, NOWHERE. ANY WHO THIS IS CONFLICTING BECAUSE it goes from "HUMANS ARE INHERENTLY MORAL" TO, " WE MUST BE TAUGHT. "//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////More of your conflicting statementsThis is your response after I asked do dogs have free will"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). "Then your statements change after I bring up cannibalistic tribes"This isn't about morality, this is about free choice. No matter what your morality, you still have choices you can make. Even if you have differing opinions of what is good or not, you still have the same choice I do. "It seems like you are trying to use the concept of morality as you see fit. I brought up the cannibalistic tribes to convey the fact, Morality is up in the air, and is a luck of birth. It might as well just be considered a way of identifying one group from another. Mainly it is about supporting a group that will advance your life span. It isn't about being a cannibal it is about surviving in a location where the only morality there is to know is the morality you LEARN FROM YOUR PERENTS! !! !! .I would love to leave Morality, out of the free will out of the equation. It is you that is trying to save your theory with the weak argument of saying dogs don't have morals, therefore they aren't free. Then I bring up Cannibalistic tribes and you throw out Morality as necessary for humans free will, and you try to defend "Free Choice"//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////My reasoning behind the cookie jar scenarioYOUR STATEMENT"With the example about the cookie jar, you are actually helping to make my case. The boy had a choice of whether to go for the cookie or not. It is irrelevant if one boy was punished and the other not. They both made the decision to take a cookie against their parents' wishes. One was punished because he was caught doing it. "I find you to be a very nice, and honest person given your take on this argument. My rationality behind this analogy was presenting the injustice that some are dealt with, Allergies, Neurological disorders. My position was that the parents knew that both boys were going for a cookie, and only one gets punished. (APPARENTLY ITS DUE TO THE FALL)ANOTHER SLIGHTLY RELATED THINGIT SEEMS LIKE A SLIPPERY SLOPE TO SAY THAT YOUR STATEMENT"Even if you have differing opinions of what is good or not, you still have the same choice I do. If I believe A is right and you believe B is right, I might choose A and you might choose B because we both consider ourselves to be moral people. However, no one is perfect -- I might occasionally choose B and you might occasionally choose A because we don't particularly feel like abiding by our morals that day. " FIRST YOU THREW MORALITY OUT OF THE EQUATION FOR FREE WILL, AND DUBBED IT FREE CHOICE. YOUR STATEMENT"There may be situations in which we don't have a choice, but that doesn't take away from our free will. Sometimes there is no choice to make, or no good choice, but we are forced into the situation. Our choice in the matter is taken away from us. "NOW YOUR TRYING TO SAY YOU CAN HAVE FREE WILL EVEN IF THERE IS NO CHOICE, NO A NO B, NOTHING. IF I LOSE THIS THEN VOTERS ARE ADMITTING THAT FREE WILL = NO CHOICETHERE ARE ALOT OF WAYS TO GO ON THIS, AND A LOT OF THINGS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO FOLLOW UP ON BUT AS THIS IS MY LAST ROUND.