Here's why the "free will" argument cannot be justified if God is all good

[Lucian Hodoboc]

First of all, I don't believe that we have free will, but the argument of "free will" is the main theodicy that Christian apologists use. Here's why this argument cannot be justified if God is omnibenevolent.

Omnibenevolence entails that God wants the maximum well-being for all living things, right? The reason why God created angels and humanity is to share His love, right? He didn't need to do this, because He is trinity and could share His love among His persons.

So, why did God endow humans with free will? Well, the answer Christians give is that it is impossible for a sentient being to love without having free will. Let's assume that this is true. Who would have been negatively impacted by the humans' inability to love God? The humans? No. Without free will, they would have lived a blissful existence of eternal communion with God. It would have negatively impacted God because He wouldn't have received love from His creation. He would have received only obedience.

But who did free will negatively impact? It negatively impacted both humans and God.

So, God had the choice between our well-being (no free will and blissful existence) and His well-being (free will and receiving love from His creation). He chose His well-being. That doesn't align with omnibenevolence. Omnibenevolence would have preferred to spare us from suffering by not endowing us with free will.

 

[Lamb]

The will is not free to choose that which is Holy.

 

[tango]

You seem to be rehashing the same arguments as before, based on the fundamental assumption that if something seems bad to you it must therefore be bad.

You thinking God should behave in a certain way doesn't mean God must behave in that way.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

You seem to be rehashing the same arguments as before, based on the fundamental assumption that if something seems bad to you it must therefore be bad.

You seem to be repeating the same accusation that I've debunked before. It's not about what seems bad to me. It's about what is logically concluded as being bad by using the laws of reason/logic.

Are you familiar with Christian apologetics at all? Your constant counter-argument is some sort of ad hominem. Attack the opinion, not the person. We're debating facts here. If the facts I present can be argued to be illogical by using logic, then do so.

What you don't seem to understand is that God cannot operate outside of the laws of logic and still be understood by us. If you want to claim that God doesn't care about logic, then you've automatically destroyed any possibility of having any sort of knowledge about said God. But that is not what He says in the Bible. He says, "come now, and let us reason together" (Isaiah 1:18).

 

[Lamb]

You seem to be repeating the same accusation that I've debunked before. It's not about what seems bad to me. It's about what is logically concluded as being bad by using the laws of reason/logic.

Are you familiar with Christian apologetics at all? Your constant counter-argument is some sort of ad hominem. Attack the opinion, not the person. We're debating facts here. If the facts I present can be argued to be illogical by using logic, then do so.

What you don't seem to understand is that God cannot operate outside of the laws of logic and still be understood by us. If you want to claim that God doesn't care about logic, then you've automatically destroyed any possibility of having any sort of knowledge about said God. But that is not what He says in the Bible. He says, "come now, and let us reason together" (Isaiah 1:18).

You keep using human logic and insist that God uses it because you can't understand Him. Humble yourself to know that He is above us in wisdom and truth.

 

[tango]

You seem to be repeating the same accusation that I've debunked before. It's not about what seems bad to me. It's about what is logically concluded as being bad by using the laws of reason/logic.

But you haven't debunked it. You've merely countered it with some variation of "God doesn't do what I think is good, therefore God isn't good".

Are you familiar with Christian apologetics at all? Your constant counter-argument is some sort of ad hominem. Attack the opinion, not the person. We're debating facts here. If the facts I present can be argued to be illogical by using logic, then do so.

It's not an ad hominem attack at all, it's merely an observation that it's a rehash of an old argument you've presented many times, and which has been countered with the exact same argument many times, and yet you present it again as if it were a new thing.

What you don't seem to understand is that God cannot operate outside of the laws of logic and still be understood by us. If you want to claim that God doesn't care about logic, then you've automatically destroyed any possibility of having any sort of knowledge about said God. But that is not what He says in the Bible. He says, "come now, and let us reason together" (Isaiah 1:18).

Yes he did, but reasoning together requires more than "this seems bad to me, therefore it is bad". Arguing that God is bad requires more than God seeming to be bad from your perspective.

 

[Truth Seeker]

You seem to be rehashing the same arguments as before, based on the fundamental assumption that if something seems bad to you it must therefore be bad.

You thinking God should behave in a certain way doesn't mean God must behave in that way.

Romans 14:22-23, "Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin."

Underscores the importance of personal convictions and the role of faith in guiding a believer's actions. The passage advises that one's faith should be held personally before God, emphasizing individual accountability and the need for actions to align with one's conscience. "Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth" suggests that believers should act in a manner that does not bring self-condemnation, meaning they should only engage in behaviors they are fully convinced are permissible according to their faith. The verse "And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith" highlights that engaging in actions without full conviction or faith leads to sin, as these actions are not done in good conscience. Therefore, "whatsoever is not of faith is sin" stresses that every action a believer takes should stem from a place of faith and assurance in God's will. This principle encourages believers to be mindful of their personal convictions and to ensure that their actions reflect their faith, avoiding anything that would cause internal conflict or doubt. This perspective fosters a personal, sincere relationship with God, where faith guides all decisions and actions.

 

[Truth Seeker]

The will is not free to choose that which is Holy.

For more extensive clarity:

The assertion that "the will is not free to choose that which is Holy" can be addressed by considering the role of God's grace and the human response to it.

The concept of free will is foundational in understanding humanity's relationship with God. Scripture affirms that humans are created with the ability to make choices, as seen in Deuteronomy 30:19, which says, "I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live." This indicates that people have the capacity to choose between right and wrong, life and death.

Due to the fallen nature of humanity, as described in Romans 3:23, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God," the natural inclination of human will is towards sin. Without divine intervention, individuals are unable to achieve holiness on their own. This is where the grace of God and the work of the Holy Spirit become crucial.

According to Titus 2:11-12, "For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world." It is through the grace of God and the transformative power of the Holy Spirit that individuals are enabled to choose holiness. When a person responds to God's grace, repents, and is filled with the Holy Spirit, they are empowered to live a life that pleases God.

Thus, while the human will, in its natural state, may not be free to choose holiness due to the bondage of sin, God's grace liberates and enables individuals to make righteous choices. Philippians 2:13 affirms this, stating, "For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." Therefore, through divine empowerment, believers are indeed capable of choosing that which is holy, aligning their will with God's will.

 

[Truth Seeker]

You seem to be repeating the same accusation that I've debunked before. It's not about what seems bad to me. It's about what is logically concluded as being bad by using the laws of reason/logic.

See post #7

Are you familiar with Christian apologetics at all? Your constant counter-argument is some sort of ad hominem. Attack the opinion, not the person. We're debating facts here. If the facts I present can be argued to be illogical by using logic, then do so.

I appreciate your emphasis on engaging with facts and logic in our discussions. In addressing any differences in perspective, it is important to focus on the substance of the arguments rather than the individuals presenting them. Our goal should be to seek truth and understanding through thoughtful examination of Scripture and reasoned discussion. While personal respect is crucial, we must prioritize addressing the issues at hand with clarity and accuracy. If any argument or viewpoint appears illogical or contrary to the teachings of Scripture, it is indeed appropriate to challenge those points directly with sound reasoning and biblical support. This approach ensures that our debates remain constructive and centered on discovering and affirming the truth, fostering a spirit of unity and growth in our faith.

What you don't seem to understand is that God cannot operate outside of the laws of logic and still be understood by us. If you want to claim that God doesn't care about logic, then you've automatically destroyed any possibility of having any sort of knowledge about said God. But that is not what He says in the Bible. He says, "come now, and let us reason together" (Isaiah 1:18).

I understand your concern about the role of logic in our understanding of God. Indeed, the Bible does affirm the importance of reasoning and logical thought. Isaiah 1:18, "Come now, and let us reason together," highlights that God invites us to engage in thoughtful dialogue and seek understanding through reason. I believe that God’s revelation to us is both profound and accessible. While God’s ways are beyond full human comprehension, He has chosen to reveal Himself in ways that engage our rational faculties. This does not negate the importance of logic; rather, it emphasizes that our understanding of God is harmonized with divine reasoning. At the same time, we acknowledge that God operates beyond human constraints and logic, and His ways are higher than ours. This balance allows us to appreciate the mysteries of God while engaging with His truth in a way that is coherent and rational.

 

[Truth Seeker]

You keep using human logic and insist that God uses it because you can't understand Him. Humble yourself to know that He is above us in wisdom and truth.

More insight on God’s transcendent wisdom and the call for humility in recognizing our limitations. Indeed, God’s wisdom and understanding far exceed our own, as the Scriptures affirm in Isaiah 55:8-9, "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." While we use human logic to grasp and communicate the truths of Scripture, it is essential to remember that our understanding is always partial and finite. God, in His infinite wisdom, reveals Himself in ways that are accessible to us but still far surpass our full comprehension. Embracing humility allows us to appreciate the profound mystery of God’s nature while engaging with His revelation through the tools He has provided us, including reason and logic. This approach honors both the grandeur of God's wisdom and our capacity for understanding within the limits He has set.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

You keep using human logic and insist that God uses it because you can't understand Him. Humble yourself to know that He is above us in wisdom and truth.

Do you use any other type of logic to have the knowledge you currently have about God? Do you use any other type of logic than human logic to know that He is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipresent? Do you use any other type of logic than human logic to know about being baptized, born again, about the Trinity, about salvation?

If you do use other types of logic, how did you acquire access to it?

If you don't use other types of logic, how can you use human logic to understand concepts about a God who doesn't use human logic?

I humbled myself for 5 years, I prayed till I couldn't pray anymore. No knowledge came, no answers came to the questions I had. In fact, more unanswered questions appeared during this period of time. So, no, humbling myself did not make me know that He is above us in wisdom and truth. On the contrary, humbling myself made me seem Him as a dictator.

Also, how do you know that you're humbling yourself in front of the right God? What if you're humbling yourself in front of the Christian God when it's actually the Muslim or the Hindu one who is the real one?

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

You've merely countered it with some variation of "God doesn't do what I think is good, therefore God isn't good".

No, I haven't. This has nothing to do with my personal desires. It has everything to do with logic. These are arguments that have been presented in apologetics debates and have been confirmed as valid even by numerous Christian apologists.

I have explained this time and time again. I don't know what else to conclude other than the fact that you just don't understand reason, case in which perhaps it would be better not to partake in my threads.

reasoning together requires more than "this seems bad to me, therefore it is bad". Arguing that God is bad requires more than God seeming to be bad from your perspective.

No, it does not. A Being who has the ability to make His creation understand Him (omnipotence), but chooses not to, only to send them to eternal torture for not having been able to understand Him and therefore believed in Him, is not all good (omnibenevolence).

 

[tango]

No, I haven't. This has nothing to do with my personal desires. It has everything to do with logic. These are arguments that have been presented in apologetics debates and have been confirmed as valid even by numerous Christian apologists.

I have explained this time and time again. I don't know what else to conclude other than the fact that you just don't understand reason, case in which perhaps it would be better not to partake in my threads.

You keep saying you've explained it while your argument remains little more than "I don't see the purpose of this, therefore no purpose exists. Other people saying an argument is valid doesn't mean anything. You've made accusations of ad hominem attacks while throwing around your own logical fallacies - in this case a combination of appeal to authority and non sequitur.

No, it does not. A Being who has the ability to make His creation understand Him (omnipotence), but chooses not to, only to send them to eternal torture for not having been able to understand Him and therefore believed in Him, is not all good (omnibenevolence).

Does God condemn people for not being able to fully understand? Do you refuse to believe in anything until you understand every single thing about it?

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

You keep saying you've explained it while your argument remains little more than "I don't see the purpose of this, therefore no purpose exists.

No. My argument is: "Logic cannot find purpose in this, therefore no purpose that we can understand exists, and if a purpose that we cannot understand with our available means of reason does exist, then it would be unjust for anyone to judge us for not believing something that we couldn't understand".

Does God condemn people for not being able to fully understand?

God condemns people for not believing and I find belief to be fundamentally grounded in understanding, so, we can infer that yes, God does condemn some people for not being able to fully understand.

Do you refuse to believe in anything until you understand every single thing about it?

No, but I have to understand enough about it for my brain to form beliefs about it. And I can't think of many things that put my eternal existence in danger because I haven't believed them for a period of a few decades.

 

[tango]

No. My argument is: "Logic cannot find purpose in this, therefore no purpose that we can understand exists, and if a purpose that we cannot understand with our available means of reason does exist, then it would be unjust for anyone to judge us for not believing something that we couldn't understand".

Your argument is that you cannot see purpose in it and from there you conclude that no purpose exists. It's the same as you've presented several times now.

God condemns people for not believing and I find belief to be fundamentally grounded in understanding, so, we can infer that yes, God does condemn some people for not being able to fully understand.

You can believe without fully understanding, no? Unless your argument is that you cannot possibly believe in something that is beyond your understanding, which is a pretty bizarre argument.

No, but I have to understand enough about it for my brain to form beliefs about it. And I can't think of many things that put my eternal existence in danger because I haven't believed them for a period of a few decades.

You can drive a car even if you don't understand the details of how an internal combustion engine works. You can understand the basics of how a combustion engine works without understanding the chemical reaction that goes on inside the engine. You can understand the basics of the chemical reaction without understanding exactly what happens at a molecular level. At what point do you accept that some part of it is beyond your understanding, but that pressing the pedal on the right causes the car to go faster and pressing the pedal on the left causes the car to go slower? Do you refuse to believe that this big metal box can possibly move forward based on nothing more than you pressing a pedal, until you understand every single aspect of the process happening inside the engine?

I don't fully understand the minutae of the different aerobic and anaerobic pathways within the human body or the precise chemical reactions that turn what I ate for breakfast into fuel for my muscles, or how different groups of muscles respond differently, or precisely how the stimuli from my brain are generated and transmitted to my muscles, or precisely how the alveoli in my lungs handle putting oxygen into my blood and getting carbon dioxide out of my blood, or all sorts of other things. But despite not understanding any of those things in anything more than generic outline detail my legs worked just fine this morning when I went for a run and made full use of every single one of those processes I don't fully understand.

There's nothing wrong with seeking to understand God. But if you accept that God is bigger than you are (and if you don't then this thing named "God" isn't actually much of a god at all) then you have to accept that some things about God may not fit into your understanding. If you're stuck on an endless loop of "God doesn't do things the way I think he should do them, therefore God is wrong" then I'd urge you to be careful you're not trying to be God.

Sometimes all we can do is accept there's some aspect we don't understand and trust that it works under the hood. Sometimes it doesn't seem to work as well as we'd like - I wish I could shave a minute or two per mile off my running pace but in the current levels of heat my system just doesn't work as well as I'd like. I can work within that limitation without demanding that God should have made me differently, or made my cardiovascular system differently, or made a world such that I can run as fast as I want regardless of what I eat, or whatever other things I might wish were different about the world. Somewhere along the line I have to either trust God even if I don't understand the details, or refuse to believe that God exists because he doesn't do something the way I think he should. I'm not sure the second is a rational argument.