Why can we do wrong

I'm not addressing this to any religion in particular but to all.

If we were created, why do we have the option to do wrong, I mean it just doesn't make sense to me to. For example why would you invent a calculator but create in a way the if it feels like it, it can give you the wrong answer?

http://www.captaincynic.com/thread/23985/3/right_or_wrong.htm[/url]

It isnt very concise, and its a little off topic, but it might spark some other thoughts.

If you had all the power in the universe and knew everything, would you want to create a robot? I wouldn't, I would create something worthy, something complex and beautiful, maybe something to keep me company and love me in return. Maybe thats the reason God created us, and when he did he gave us free will so we didn't turn into robots. We were more like minigods.
He gave Adam and Eve a choice, even though he knew they would fail, he still gave them that choice. They choose to eat the fruit forbidden to them and knew good and evil. Once they knew evil, they knew how to do evil since they weren't God themselves, thus making wrong in the world.

You're logic is flawed hey_dude742 and I'll tell you why. From what I have learned from a great number of Christians, Muslims and Jews is that God is perfect. *Hold this thought for a moment* Now, when something is created, the creator MUST already know the outcome of his creation UNLESS the creator made a mistake. But you said that God is perfect, which means that we are in fact not a mistake and further means that God already knows the outcome of our choices. So, why would this god punish a creation that did exactly as it was created to do? If you're assumptions are correct about God and also the purpose of human beings then, quite frankly, this God is not worthy of our praise. He is, according to you, a being that purposely creates failures for the sake of punishing them for eternity.

I'll do you a favor now, I'll present an argument on your behalf. You might say that it is necessary to create failures in order to achieve these demi-god companions. That failures are a necessary element in the demi-god companion creation. In this scenario, though, God excercises traits that humans would regard as evil. Instead of helping these failures, he chooses to damn them for eternity showing no signs of forgiveness or remorse. I'm sorry but this being is sick. I would hate to be around even a human that enjoyed this kind of pleasure, let alone a god.

This is really off topic, I just wanted to express how annoyed I am when someone says something like, "You're logic is flawed hey_dude742 and I'll tell you why." As if there is any logic that is 100% flawless....

the age old question free will or predestination?? love is being free, not tied to a chain..... so go so loved us he let us be free..... free will to be right or free to be wrong, free to choose good or free to choose bad... we can be wrong when we are in rebellion against our creator....

God created us to love Him, but not to do so by force. The angels had already been created and they knew God and His power and loved Him that way. Maybe He wanted another creation that would love Him in a different way, i.e. based solely on belief. We have the option to do wrong and the option not to believe in Him, but we also have the option to do just the opposite. Just a thought. Also, (off topic) to ChrisD: any reading and understanding of the Bible in the original language will reveal that descriptions of Hell never say that Hell is an everlasting punishment. The Bible actually says that people go to Hell for a determined period of time, most likely to burn the sin out of the soul so that the perfect soul can then find happiness with God in Heaven.

KGB- For some reason peopele still do this on this site... If you are going to use God in an argument then you must first prove its relavency and it "solidity" as a "strong" point to go off of...

As I interpreted the question set forth by the original poster the assumption of the existence of God or some other creating force was already assumed. The question was posed, "IF we were created..." This to me implies that the question is assuming there is some force or all powerful being that DOES exist. It is a hypothetical question that I attempted to answer based on the original post. If you wish to prove or disprove the existence of God, I suggest you find a more suitable thread for that particular subject.

proof of God?? silly...... Can your mind conceive of a greatest possible being?( yes). Is it greater to exist or not to exist? It is greater to exist therefore the greatest possible being exist. God. I have simpified a very complex agrument for the exist of God. I hope you can grasp it. Only the begining.... of the proof I have

the voice,

You're grammar is on par with a 4th grader and yet you have the utmost confidence that you have disproved one of the most profound questions presented by life. Perhaps some of us could grasp you're golden proof if you conveyed the meaning in a grown-up manner as opposed to the lax fog you've placed before us. You gonna give it another try?

Did you not understand because of the gramer, spelling, or the concept itself? put me on the right track. I did not mean to be condescending about grasping it. Just pointing out it is a deep thought and not so easy to see the brillance of the argument.) 1)God is defined as the being in which none greater is possible. here we go again....

2) It is true that the notion of God exists in the understanding (your mind.)

3) And that God may exist in reality (God is a possible being.)

4) If God only exists in the mind, and may have existed, then God might have been greater than He is.

5) Then, God might have been greater than He is (if He existed in reality.)

6) Therefore, God is a being which a greater is possible.

7) This is not possible, for God is a being in which a greater is impossible.

8) Therefore God exists in reality as well as the mind.

or this,
(1) I have a concept of T (that is, I am conceiving of T).
It follows that if one conceives of T, then one conceives of the greatest conceivable thing, and, therefore, cannot conceive of anything better. That is, (1) implies,
(2) One cannot conceive of something greater than T.
distinguishes something's existing in the understanding (as, being conceived) from its existing in reality. All that (1) tells us is that T exists in the understanding.
(3) T does not exist in reality.
Then, since,
(4) If what one is conceiving, namely, T, does not exist in reality, then one can conceive of something greater than T, namely, T-as-existing.
From (3) and (4) it follows that,
(5) One can conceive of something greater than T.
Now, notice that (5) contradicts (2). If we conjoin (5) and (2) we get an obvious falsehood, namely, a contradiction. Accordingly, not both (1) and (2) can be true; one of them must be false. But if we reject (2) then we must give up (1), since (2) is implied by (1). But (1) seems innocent. So, retaining (1), we must retain (2), and, therefore, reject (5) as false. In fact, (5) seems absurd anyway: how can one conceive of something greater than the greatest conceivable thing?
Now we recall that we derived (5) from (3) and (4). If (5) is false, then we must reject either (3) or (4) (or both). So (4) is true. It follows that (3) is false. But if (3) is false then it is not the case that T does not exist in reality, that is,
(6). T exists in reality.
Since 'T' is synonymous with 'God' then it follows that,
(7) God exists.

Do I permission from the net police to discuss God as a solid thing yet? If not I have more.

I'm not sure if any of that made sense or not. Good try though. By the way, wouldn't infinity be the greatest concievable something? Couldn't your definiton of God then be reduced to infinity? An interesting notion, I must say. Maybe God IS the infinite cycle of life. A cycle which is completely impartial which makes possible for any form of heaven or hell concievable. A perfect system, satisfying every need and want. Beautiful.

there can be only one God. I'll cut you some slack since your only 18, these arguments I gave you are in fact brilliant, however there are logical problems with them. none the less there are quite convincing, by the way I did not understand them either the first time I saw them. They are the ontological arguments for the exist of god by St. Anselm . The reality is God reveals himself to those he chooses to.