The Free Will Defense
0
So Jash posted in my topic "Why I am(not) an atheist?" Doing what I'm rather annoyed with people doing by now...arguing religion in a thread made soley for defining why you believe whatever it is you do. When I responded to him in the thread and told him to stop, he neg repped me and then declared I can't handle detracting points of view(which is nonsense, many people who disagreed with me posted in the topic). I then informed him that A. his post was philosophically incorrect, and B. to stop arguing in a thread that isn't made for it, and that I'm going to make a SEPARATE thread addressing the issue he brought up.
To clarify, The Free Will Defense is a common response to what is more commonly known as "The Problem of Evil." Which goes as follows:
"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?"
Now, this problem was made back thousands of years ago by a greek philosopher named Epicurus, and the very basic premise it contends, that a benevolent god cannot coexist with a world of evil has been successfully refuted by Alvin Plantinga.
Plantinga, however, did this by demonstrating through analytical logic that a benevolent god COULD, in theory, create a world where evil exists, and still be considered such. I don't feel like dredging it up, but you can look it up for yourselves.
Now, while this does show that a benevolent god and a world with evil in it could hypothetically exist, this does, unfortunately for the Christian, open up more problems to their worldview.
According to the Free Will Defense of Plantinga or others the only real way to create a world without evil is to take away everybody's free will. Since God values our free will to worship or sin if we so desire "Because he loves us so much" then evil, is, in essence, NECESSARY for existence.
The problem here is that it doesn't take heaven and divine freedom into consideration, that is to say, to accept this defense is to necessarily abandon the concept of heaven. Because, if heaven is a place that exists with both free will, and no evil, then the free will defense must then be rejected entirely. Therefore, by accepting the free will defense, logical conclusions must be made about heaven, namely either Premise A) That there is no free will in heaven or premise B) Evil exists in heaven.
Annother problem stems from Plantinga himself: "The idea is that god wanted there to be creatures with free will. He wanted to create creatures in His image. An important part of that image, one of several different parts of it, would be that human beings should be free."
Now, if it's true that God has free will in yet he can never do an evil thing, then it follows logically that free will is not a prerequisite for there not being evil.
And none of this even addresses the tragedies that occur that are not even a PRODUCT of free will. That is, things like the Japanese Tsunami last year that killed many and placed millions of lives in danger. As an atheist it's regrettable but understandable that this is simply a result of natural occurrences that happen from time to time. But for God to allow this the christian MUST argue that he has a "morally sufficient reason" to allow it to occur. But to even argue that presupposes some sort of intent behind it, similar to if I had the ability to magick someone out of a burning building, yet didn't and simply stood by and watched, I'd be considered immoral for not doing so, yet, someone else could simply say, "We must trust that he had a morally sufficient reason to do so. He has a plan in store that we must have faith in."
I'd like to point out as a side note the idea of God having a grand plan for all events and all causes for all deaths and all that stuff can be argued to infringe on free will anyhow, but that's an argument for another day.
In the case of a professional hack like William Lane Craig, he brushes things off like this by saying, "The atheist presupposes that God cannot have a morally sufficient reason for allowing such things." and backs it up by saying, "We cannot know the nature of god or his reasons for doing anything, so to make a claim about his intentions is necessarily an argument from ignorance." Of course I don't need to presuppose anything, as I've read the bible. God's reasons for doing things are just as human as any of us. They are petty, in the case of ordering Moses to kill tribes that worship false idols, they are vengeful, in the case of Noah's flood, and they are egotistical, such as hardening Pharaoh's heart on several occasions simply so that he can cause more plagues in Egypt and show off.
Yet at the same time Craig will usually offer such a reason that he already says nobody can know, claiming quote: "Considering God's providence over the whole of human history, then I think you can see how hopeless it is for us finite limited observers to speculate on the probability as to whether or not God has a morally sufficient reason for permitting particular evil that we observe." Followed by: "Any catastrophe or disaster in life always needs to be seen within the broader framework of God's providential plan for human history, which is to draw people freely into the kingdom of God."
So in one speech he says we in our finite minds cannot speculate as to the reasons for God allowing evil, and in the other he claims to know EXACTLY what those reasons are. This might seem like a morally sufficient reason, but it's a widely accepted view of scripture that most people AREN'T going to make it into the kingdom of heaven. Consider this: Even if every single christian right now when they died went to heaven, setting aside doctrinal differences and claims of heresy against each other that still leaves 5 billion people without a prayer to get into heaven. To say nothing of the billions more throughout history that weren't christian that receive the same damnation.
So Craig likes to espouse that the ends justify the means, but the ends are that SOME people get into heaven, with the means being MOST people dying horrible deaths and ending up damned in hell.
Let me ask you: Does that sound morally sufficient to you?
And THAT, Jash, is how you argue theology and philosophy and logic.
And if you come back with the same weak ass argument that, "Pfft, free will DOES exist in heaven" then guess what? So does evil. And I'd ask you what's so great about heaven. And if evil doesn't exist in heaven? Guess what? You don't get to use the free will defense against the problem of evil.
You fail. Period.
To clarify, The Free Will Defense is a common response to what is more commonly known as "The Problem of Evil." Which goes as follows:
"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?"
Now, this problem was made back thousands of years ago by a greek philosopher named Epicurus, and the very basic premise it contends, that a benevolent god cannot coexist with a world of evil has been successfully refuted by Alvin Plantinga.
Plantinga, however, did this by demonstrating through analytical logic that a benevolent god COULD, in theory, create a world where evil exists, and still be considered such. I don't feel like dredging it up, but you can look it up for yourselves.
Now, while this does show that a benevolent god and a world with evil in it could hypothetically exist, this does, unfortunately for the Christian, open up more problems to their worldview.
According to the Free Will Defense of Plantinga or others the only real way to create a world without evil is to take away everybody's free will. Since God values our free will to worship or sin if we so desire "Because he loves us so much" then evil, is, in essence, NECESSARY for existence.
The problem here is that it doesn't take heaven and divine freedom into consideration, that is to say, to accept this defense is to necessarily abandon the concept of heaven. Because, if heaven is a place that exists with both free will, and no evil, then the free will defense must then be rejected entirely. Therefore, by accepting the free will defense, logical conclusions must be made about heaven, namely either Premise A) That there is no free will in heaven or premise B) Evil exists in heaven.
Annother problem stems from Plantinga himself: "The idea is that god wanted there to be creatures with free will. He wanted to create creatures in His image. An important part of that image, one of several different parts of it, would be that human beings should be free."
Now, if it's true that God has free will in yet he can never do an evil thing, then it follows logically that free will is not a prerequisite for there not being evil.
And none of this even addresses the tragedies that occur that are not even a PRODUCT of free will. That is, things like the Japanese Tsunami last year that killed many and placed millions of lives in danger. As an atheist it's regrettable but understandable that this is simply a result of natural occurrences that happen from time to time. But for God to allow this the christian MUST argue that he has a "morally sufficient reason" to allow it to occur. But to even argue that presupposes some sort of intent behind it, similar to if I had the ability to magick someone out of a burning building, yet didn't and simply stood by and watched, I'd be considered immoral for not doing so, yet, someone else could simply say, "We must trust that he had a morally sufficient reason to do so. He has a plan in store that we must have faith in."
I'd like to point out as a side note the idea of God having a grand plan for all events and all causes for all deaths and all that stuff can be argued to infringe on free will anyhow, but that's an argument for another day.
In the case of a professional hack like William Lane Craig, he brushes things off like this by saying, "The atheist presupposes that God cannot have a morally sufficient reason for allowing such things." and backs it up by saying, "We cannot know the nature of god or his reasons for doing anything, so to make a claim about his intentions is necessarily an argument from ignorance." Of course I don't need to presuppose anything, as I've read the bible. God's reasons for doing things are just as human as any of us. They are petty, in the case of ordering Moses to kill tribes that worship false idols, they are vengeful, in the case of Noah's flood, and they are egotistical, such as hardening Pharaoh's heart on several occasions simply so that he can cause more plagues in Egypt and show off.
Yet at the same time Craig will usually offer such a reason that he already says nobody can know, claiming quote: "Considering God's providence over the whole of human history, then I think you can see how hopeless it is for us finite limited observers to speculate on the probability as to whether or not God has a morally sufficient reason for permitting particular evil that we observe." Followed by: "Any catastrophe or disaster in life always needs to be seen within the broader framework of God's providential plan for human history, which is to draw people freely into the kingdom of God."
So in one speech he says we in our finite minds cannot speculate as to the reasons for God allowing evil, and in the other he claims to know EXACTLY what those reasons are. This might seem like a morally sufficient reason, but it's a widely accepted view of scripture that most people AREN'T going to make it into the kingdom of heaven. Consider this: Even if every single christian right now when they died went to heaven, setting aside doctrinal differences and claims of heresy against each other that still leaves 5 billion people without a prayer to get into heaven. To say nothing of the billions more throughout history that weren't christian that receive the same damnation.
So Craig likes to espouse that the ends justify the means, but the ends are that SOME people get into heaven, with the means being MOST people dying horrible deaths and ending up damned in hell.
Let me ask you: Does that sound morally sufficient to you?
And THAT, Jash, is how you argue theology and philosophy and logic.
And if you come back with the same weak ass argument that, "Pfft, free will DOES exist in heaven" then guess what? So does evil. And I'd ask you what's so great about heaven. And if evil doesn't exist in heaven? Guess what? You don't get to use the free will defense against the problem of evil.
You fail. Period.
0
Your point abouth people goign to heaven vs people goign to hell made me realise something , satan is winning by far . He must have a big ass motherfucking army down there . I hope a nephalem will show up when satan will try to take over heaven ...
Sorry it's the most intelligent thing i could say on this topic .
Sorry it's the most intelligent thing i could say on this topic .
1
"And THAT, Jash, is how you argue theology and philosophy and logic.
[...]
You fail. Period. "
Seriously, is there anything to discuss here? This thread looks just like a personal qualm with a single user, why is it not in the thread related to the topic?
[...]
You fail. Period. "
Seriously, is there anything to discuss here? This thread looks just like a personal qualm with a single user, why is it not in the thread related to the topic?
0
gizgal wrote...
Seriously, is there anything to discuss here? This thread looks just like a personal qualm with a single user, why is it not in the thread related to the topic?
Because that topic isn't for this. The related thread is soley for explaining why you believe what you believe. I even expounded in the first post that it's not a thread for debate.
0
BigLundi wrote...
gizgal wrote...
Seriously, is there anything to discuss here? This thread looks just like a personal qualm with a single user, why is it not in the thread related to the topic?
Because that topic isn't for this. The related thread is soley for explaining why you believe what you believe. I even expounded in the first post that it's not a thread for debate.
Funny thing about Serious Discussion is... we discuss things.
Your points leave nothing to discuss.
0
[color=#2e1a6b]I'm listening to trololo while reading your thread, no offense, but it's a hillarious combination; y'all should try it.
This looks like it should be a PM. But since it's a public thread, I guess I'll respond.
Free Will is what gives us the capability to choose to sin. It does not mean that we will without-a-doubt sin, it just means that we are capable of sinning. This capability to sin, combined with a desire or motivation to sin, will cause us to sin. God has the capability to sin, but his nature presents no desire or motivation to sin, therefore he doesn't sin. We have the capability to sin, and our tainted nature and temptation create a desire to sin, therefore we sin. In heaven, we will be in the presence of God. While in God's presence, the desire to sin will be gone, and therefore, we won't sin.
I'm not sure if this analogy will help, but:
You have free will, which makes you capable of stabbing your heart with a knife. Does that mean that you will stab your heart with a knife? No. You have no desire to stab your heart with a knife, and it defies your nature (desire to survive). This analogy shows that can have the free will to do something, but if you don't want to do it, then you won't.
This looks like it should be a PM. But since it's a public thread, I guess I'll respond.
Free Will is what gives us the capability to choose to sin. It does not mean that we will without-a-doubt sin, it just means that we are capable of sinning. This capability to sin, combined with a desire or motivation to sin, will cause us to sin. God has the capability to sin, but his nature presents no desire or motivation to sin, therefore he doesn't sin. We have the capability to sin, and our tainted nature and temptation create a desire to sin, therefore we sin. In heaven, we will be in the presence of God. While in God's presence, the desire to sin will be gone, and therefore, we won't sin.
I'm not sure if this analogy will help, but:
You have free will, which makes you capable of stabbing your heart with a knife. Does that mean that you will stab your heart with a knife? No. You have no desire to stab your heart with a knife, and it defies your nature (desire to survive). This analogy shows that can have the free will to do something, but if you don't want to do it, then you won't.
0
Lelouch24 wrote...
[color=#2e1a6b]I'm listening to trololo while reading your thread, no offense, but it's a hillarious combination; y'all should try it. This looks like it should be a PM. But since it's a public thread, I guess I'll respond.
Free Will is what gives us the capability to choose to sin. It does not mean that we will without-a-doubt sin, it just means that we are capable of sinning. This capability to sin, combined with a desire or motivation to sin, will cause us to sin. God has the capability to sin, but his nature presents no desire or motivation to sin, therefore he doesn't sin. We have the capability to sin, and our tainted nature and temptation create a desire to sin, therefore we sin. In heaven, we will be in the presence of God. While in God's presence, the desire to sin will be gone, and therefore, we won't sin.
I'm not sure if this analogy will help, but:
You have free will, which makes you capable of stabbing your heart with a knife. Does that mean that you will stab your heart with a knife? No. You have no desire to stab your heart with a knife, and it defies your nature (desire to survive). This analogy shows that can have the free will to do something, but if you don't want to do it, then you won't.
So in essence, even though a fundamental part of our make up is to desire to sin, when we go to heaven, we lose all desire to sin. How exactly is that...not...taking away free will?
And if you still don't see that as taking away our free will, it's still, in the very least, changing who we are as people.
Say a lion were to go to heaven. That lion would, because its in heaven, lose all desire to hunt and kill and eat...then...how is that still a lion?
And besides that, why can't God simply remove our desire to sin now? On Earth? And if that would be a violation of our free will to do so...again...how isn't it a violation of our free will in heaven when it's removed?
0
FinalBoss
#levelupyourgrind
BigLundi wrote...
Lelouch24 wrote...
[color=#2e1a6b]I'm listening to trololo while reading your thread, no offense, but it's a hillarious combination; y'all should try it. This looks like it should be a PM. But since it's a public thread, I guess I'll respond.
Free Will is what gives us the capability to choose to sin. It does not mean that we will without-a-doubt sin, it just means that we are capable of sinning. This capability to sin, combined with a desire or motivation to sin, will cause us to sin. God has the capability to sin, but his nature presents no desire or motivation to sin, therefore he doesn't sin. We have the capability to sin, and our tainted nature and temptation create a desire to sin, therefore we sin. In heaven, we will be in the presence of God. While in God's presence, the desire to sin will be gone, and therefore, we won't sin.
I'm not sure if this analogy will help, but:
You have free will, which makes you capable of stabbing your heart with a knife. Does that mean that you will stab your heart with a knife? No. You have no desire to stab your heart with a knife, and it defies your nature (desire to survive). This analogy shows that can have the free will to do something, but if you don't want to do it, then you won't.
So in essence, even though a fundamental part of our make up is to desire to sin, when we go to heaven, we lose all desire to sin. How exactly is that...not...taking away free will?
And if you still don't see that as taking away our free will, it's still, in the very least, changing who we are as people.
Say a lion were to go to heaven. That lion would, because its in heaven, lose all desire to hunt and kill and eat...then...how is that still a lion?
And besides that, why can't God simply remove our desire to sin now? On Earth? And if that would be a violation of our free will to do so...again...how isn't it a violation of our free will in heaven when it's removed?
In addition to that, how is it possible for Satan to have fallen if God's presence has that much power? If we lose all desire to sin in Heaven, then Satan (and other fallen angels) shouldn't have fallen to the dark side in theory. So no matter how you slice it, it just doesn't make sense.
0
If I remember correctly in one episode of Decoded ( about the spear of destiny) they interviewed someone who said that Satan was supposed to be they good guy and god was the evil one or something like that. Maybe he's telling the truth.
0
Mod Note: Likewise, I have decided to give this topic another chance to discuss the so-called "Free Will Defense" or "Problem of Evil". Furthermore, I would urge all users to refrain from verbally attacking other members.
Thank you for your kind understanding and cooperation.
Thank you for your kind understanding and cooperation.
0
I believe God is impotent. Or rather, that which I perceive to be God is incapable of descending into our plane. I believe this is because of the sheer mass and scope and splendor that is an omnipotent being. It is not that God does not care, it is that God can only watch and listen.
I feel odd about responding to this subject, because my ideas of what constitutes 'heaven', 'God', and 'Purgatory' [I don't believe in Hell] are greatly different from most conventional beliefs.
I believe that in death, we become one with the consciousnesses of all that have lived before us. It is not that Heaven lacks free will or evil, it is that we become one, and in this oneness, good or evil become obsolete. There is only understanding.
On the subject on Natural Disasters and Divine Intervention, I believe that God creates systems to function independently of both human and omnipotent will. For the sake of self-preservation, our Planet reacts in certain ways to certain things. We need our planet in working order to survive and thrive, so if our planet must pick a few of us off in order to save us as a whole, it is still a reflection of love, and it is still for the sake of Life being preserved.
As for each human life having a design as decreed by God, I don't believe it is as simple and stiff as being 'pre-determined'. I believe that it is the wisdom we glean from all our cumulative experiences as a whole, that implies God's design. Not precise events that take place within our short lifespans. The reason I believe this is because other people can act entirely of their own accord, and commit atrocities or create beauty. These can be completely outside of God's will. But ultimately, what these events teach us is what matters. The importance of Life, Love, and the way you responded to adversity.
Moses was clearly suffering either a vivid and terrible hallucination or a psychotic episode. God cannot be tempted by the actions of mortals. This includes Idolatry. Here is where I differ the most from conservative fundamentalists. I do not believe much of the Bible. I believe with these kinds of religious texts, one should only take from them the moral points and be done with it. There are too many variables to assume that even a fraction of what's written is even remotely in the ballpark of historical fact.
To conclude,
I believe that Free Will serves a purpose in the physical realm. Outside of it, it becomes obsolete because we become a part of each other. A quantum network of interconnected consciousnesses. Sin, desire, good, evil have no meaning when there is only understanding and acceptance.
As for Hell.. I can't say much about it because I don't believe that sentient souls are ever condemned. In death, we are shown the true gravity of our actions in our lives. We gain the wisdom that comes with this realization.
I feel odd about responding to this subject, because my ideas of what constitutes 'heaven', 'God', and 'Purgatory' [I don't believe in Hell] are greatly different from most conventional beliefs.
I believe that in death, we become one with the consciousnesses of all that have lived before us. It is not that Heaven lacks free will or evil, it is that we become one, and in this oneness, good or evil become obsolete. There is only understanding.
On the subject on Natural Disasters and Divine Intervention, I believe that God creates systems to function independently of both human and omnipotent will. For the sake of self-preservation, our Planet reacts in certain ways to certain things. We need our planet in working order to survive and thrive, so if our planet must pick a few of us off in order to save us as a whole, it is still a reflection of love, and it is still for the sake of Life being preserved.
As for each human life having a design as decreed by God, I don't believe it is as simple and stiff as being 'pre-determined'. I believe that it is the wisdom we glean from all our cumulative experiences as a whole, that implies God's design. Not precise events that take place within our short lifespans. The reason I believe this is because other people can act entirely of their own accord, and commit atrocities or create beauty. These can be completely outside of God's will. But ultimately, what these events teach us is what matters. The importance of Life, Love, and the way you responded to adversity.
Moses was clearly suffering either a vivid and terrible hallucination or a psychotic episode. God cannot be tempted by the actions of mortals. This includes Idolatry. Here is where I differ the most from conservative fundamentalists. I do not believe much of the Bible. I believe with these kinds of religious texts, one should only take from them the moral points and be done with it. There are too many variables to assume that even a fraction of what's written is even remotely in the ballpark of historical fact.
To conclude,
I believe that Free Will serves a purpose in the physical realm. Outside of it, it becomes obsolete because we become a part of each other. A quantum network of interconnected consciousnesses. Sin, desire, good, evil have no meaning when there is only understanding and acceptance.
As for Hell.. I can't say much about it because I don't believe that sentient souls are ever condemned. In death, we are shown the true gravity of our actions in our lives. We gain the wisdom that comes with this realization.
0
RukaMilda wrote...
If I remember correctly in one episode of Decoded ( about the spear of destiny) they interviewed someone who said that Satan was supposed to be they good guy and god was the evil one or something like that. Maybe he's telling the truth.History is written by the winners, as once a wise man said. Though such a grand deception would be most terrifying for many, it would be damn hilarious if it were so. But let's take it as if it were a book: Almighty god is the protagonist, but if that's it then it'd go quite lame after the creation of the world, the book wouldn't sell among the religious folk. But if adding in an evil counterpart, antagonist Lucifer here and the never-ending strife between them, that'd probably sell. Since I honestly don't know much about all of this, just heard bits from here and there I am not sure when they added the Lucifer-looks-like-a-goat-face part, before or after the first crusade.
0
BigLundi wrote...
Say a lion were to go to heaven. That lion would, because its in heaven, lose all desire to hunt and kill and eat...then...how is that still a lion?This is based on your belief that it is a sin for a lion to hunt in the first place, that it is capable of sinning in the second place, that animals would go to heaven, that heaven would exist and that the christian take on religion is the one and only true belief system.. Hate to tell you this but not all folks are christian, not all folks believe in the christian concept of god, not being a christian I'm no expert but I believe several of the other points (is hunting a sin for a lion, can a lion sin at all, would a lion go to heaven under any circumstances) are not universal beliefs even among christians.
Too be honest, I can't quite see the point of this at all, especially (as you have made clear) you don't want to even debate the issues. Sound more like a manifesto than a post to forums.
0
wcsinn wrote...
BigLundi wrote...
Say a lion were to go to heaven. That lion would, because its in heaven, lose all desire to hunt and kill and eat...then...how is that still a lion?This is based on your belief that it is a sin for a lion to hunt in the first place, that it is capable of sinning in the second place, that animals would go to heaven, that heaven would exist and that the christian take on religion is the one and only true belief system.. Hate to tell you this but not all folks are christian, not all folks believe in the christian concept of god, not being a christian I'm no expert but I believe several of the other points (is hunting a sin for a lion, can a lion sin at all, would a lion go to heaven under any circumstances) are not universal beliefs even among christians.
Too be honest, I can't quite see the point of this at all, especially (as you have made clear) you don't want to even debate the issues. Sound more like a manifesto than a post to forums.
Well...I think the first thing I should mention is that I'm an atheist. And the purpose of the lion in heaven that can't kill other things(because heaven is hypothetically supposed to be a place of pure bliss, and death wouldn't be very blissful) is that losing one's ability to do things others might not like is a taking away of free will and sometimes defining characteristics.
Another thing I'd like to address is that I'm perfectly happy with addressing this particular argument in this thread, I said I didn't want people posting arguments in the OTHER one because...that's not what it was for, and I even said in the other thread, "If you wanna argue, make a separate thread." and even that I would if I felt so inclined.