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

[Mercury]

Your finding, accurate in itself of the teachers you follow and their "god"

Could you clarify who you think my "teachers" are and who their "god" is?

Technically that makes you an ephemeral but not intentional agnostic

I could concede perhaps that I am in part what is termed a "weak agnostic" but this is inadequate to describe where I currently stand. I am also part Pantheist I would say and believe in the Oneness of Nature, the universe and everything around us and that a universal life force pervades every living thing.

which is why you imagine you are a fundamentalist.

Oh I am definitely not a fundamentalist. I mean very clearly in relation to the Bible I most certainly do not take everything in it literally and such must surely be obvious from many of my posts that highlight specfic allegorical parts that contain hidden secrets such as Genesis.

Humanists ought to have a decent anthropology and a decent anthropology allows for us to exercise the faculty of agnosticism at own discretion (on which better forms of both humanism and christianity earlier used to be at one).

I labelled yself Humanist here purely because the other available options were severely limited. I thought "Seeker" was actually the best choice as I have for countless years set out to seek the real truths of our existence and how things are, however I was subsequently informed that here on this forum "Seeker" can only refer to somone seeking Christianity specifically. Which is a shame really. So my choices are difficult. I chose Humanist as a 2nd option purely on the basis that I feel that unless humanity as a whole seeks to resolve its petty differences and prejudices that it will simply become extinct and in the not too distant future too.

My only other option is to select "Other Religion" but that I also dislike because it suggests religion and I do not follow ant religion at this point. I mean I am open to suggestions but I think the reality is that the forum options just aren't varied enough to describe a lot of people out there.

You seem to be Heideggerian and not find anything your own.

No I'm not Heideggerian either. However I am particularly interested in the works of past Philosophers and Sages of all kinds. Such would include those of Christian faith such as Saint Thomas Aquinas for example.

Hope that helps. I'll go look at the forum list of religious affiliations again and see if I can't select something better

 

[Mercury]

ETA:

I've just noticed that there is a specific option of "Christian Seeker" in the list. That being the case I think simply selecting "Seeker" was and is the best fit for me.

 

[BruceLeiter]

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.

I suggest, Lucian, that you confine your reasoning within the Bible's limits instead of going beyond it. John Calvin said wisely, "Go as far as the Bible does and then stop." He was right.

Your definition of "omnibenevolence" (I've never heard the word) is not the biblical definition that God is going make all humans as blessed as possible (?). He does have an abundant generosity for all his creatures in his comprehensive plans for them, but at the same time, humans are fully responsible for how they use those gifts and other people's gifts.

The Bible is clear that we are born dead to God and slaves to Satan (Ephesians 2:1-3), he gives believers new life by grace through faith as his gift (verses 4-9), and we fit his plans for the good works that he has planned for us to do (verse 10). Thus, we voluntarily enter his service as his adopted children and of our adopted Brother and Ruler, the risen God-man Jesus.

 

[BruceLeiter]

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.


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).

According to Paul in Romans 1:18-20, the creation experiences his creative power and divine majesty as their Creator every day but has chosen to ignore or actively or passively rebel against him so that all humans have no excuse before him. It all started with Adam's rebellion and spiraled downward into the depths of depravity (1:18-32), to which the only solution was the death and resurrection of Jesus (Romans 3:21--11:36) and the power of the risen Jesus to enable his true believers to grow in following Jesus (Romans 12-16).