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

[Frankj]

Not sure of the relevance of this question. It appears to be evasion and diversion from the key point being made.
Do you agree that a choice made at gun-point is not actually a free choice at all? Can we at least establish that first?

I'm giving you a chance to further refine your views on the non existence of free will, something you seem unwilling to do.

And no, I do not agree that being at gunpoint means there is no free choice at all. We all chose our actions, and that choice is free will.

 

[tango]

Belief without understanding is blind faith which is inherently dangerous and fickle. No human should put themselves in such an exploitable position. Were we not to do this we might then decide that Hitler was a great person and that all his atrocities were acceptable because we just don't personally understand. You would equally excuse Jimmy Savile of the many sexual abuses he conducted on innocent helpless children. This line of thinking, blind faith, is wrong, wicked and dangerous to all mankind.

Gotta love people who misquote and misrepresent.

My post talked of believing without fully understanding. You conveniently missed out the fully, leading to a misrepresentation of my point and a worthless reply.

 

[JustTheFacts]

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.

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.

First you state you "don't believe we have free will." Then later, you state that "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)." Then you claim that God "chose His well-being" which according to your logic corresponds to having free will. Did you just argue with yourself and lose?

 

[Mercury]

And no, I do not agree that being at gunpoint means there is no free choice at all. We all chose our actions, and that choice is free will.

Ok well that's a very fundamental difference of opinion which means you & I are not going to agree on things relating to free will.

I can't see how being given a choice at gun-point is any kind of real free, it's forced coercion via the threat of violence.
If that is what you think free will is then honestly I can't see why anyone would place any value in free will whatsoever. Being coerced to choose a specific option through threat of violence is not any kind of gift or loving action.

 

[Mercury]

Gotta love people who misquote and misrepresent.

My post talked of believing without fully understanding. You conveniently missed out the fully, leading to a misrepresentation of my point and a worthless reply.

Ok so can you perhaps explain what the "Lake of fire" is referred to in the Bible and how much of it you've personally seen and witnessed such that you aren't believing in it purely from blind faith of words in a book?

 

[Frankj]

Ok well that's a very fundamental difference of opinion which means you & I are not going to agree on things relating to free will.

I can't see how being given a choice at gun-point is any kind of real free, it's forced coercion via the threat of violence.
If that is what you think free will is then honestly I can't see why anyone would place any value in free will whatsoever. Being coerced to choose a specific option through threat of violence is not any kind of gift or loving action.

You have the choice to comply or not comply, and how you do so as well.

Is that choice not free will?

Letting your own fear control you or not is your own free will choice, perhaps you do not understand free will. It means your conscious actions originate in you, not in your environment, and are under your control instead of instinct automatically making them for you.

Meditate on the full meaning of Matthew 15:11, "What goes into someone's mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them."

It would be a meaningless statement if not for free will, would it not?.

 

[Mercury]

You have the choice to comply or not comply, and how you do so as well.

Is that choice not free will?

No it clearly isn't free will. If free will were involved then you would have the option of willing the gun or assailant to simply vanish or the option of teleporting your partner and yourself away from the situation, or the option of freezing time and everyone present except yourself so that you could then go grab the gun and pointit at the assailant instead.

Limitations, ANY limitations means you do not have free will. You only have limited controlled stagemanaged choices.

There is only one entity in existence that enjoys real free will and that is your God

He can will anything he wants and it happens, it manifests there and then.

Hence God said "Let there be light" and suddenly there was light

Nobody on Earth has any free will

perhaps you do not understand free will. It means your conscious actions originate in you, not in your environment, and are under your control instead of instinct automatically making them for you.

I fear it is you that does not understand free will. If you find yourself trapped underwater struggling to breathe and about to die in less than a minute then your environment IS VERY MUCH controlling your situation. If you had free will you could will the water to disappear or will yourself to not be trapped or will yourself to be able to breathe and live underwater. Since you can't do any of those things it should be obvious that you do not have free will.

Meditate on the full meaning of Matthew 15:11, "What goes into someone's mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them."

It would be a meaningless statement if not for free will, would it not?.

Completely the opposite. If what comes out of your mouth results in defilement then you don't have free will. If you have free will then you should be able to say anything at all without someone else claiming you've defiled something.

 

[Frankj]

No it clearly isn't free will. If free will were involved then you would have the option of willing the gun or assailant to simply vanish or the option of teleporting your partner and yourself away from the situation, or the option of freezing time and everyone present except yourself so that you could then go grab the gun and pointit at the assailant instead.

Limitations, ANY limitations means you do not have free will. You only have limited controlled stagemanaged choices.

There is only one entity in existence that enjoys real free will and that is your God

He can will anything he wants and it happens, it manifests there and then.

Hence God said "Let there be light" and suddenly there was light

Nobody on Earth has any free will




I fear it is you that does not understand free will. If you find yourself trapped underwater struggling to breathe and about to die in less than a minute then your environment IS VERY MUCH controlling your situation. If you had free will you could will the water to disappear or will yourself to not be trapped or will yourself to be able to breathe and live underwater. Since you can't do any of those things it should be obvious that you do not have free will.




Completely the opposite. If what comes out of your mouth results in defilement then you don't have free will. If you have free will then you should be able to say anything at all without someone else claiming you've defiled something.

I think you may want to define exactly what 'free will' means to you.

That would insure you and others are actually talking about the same thing.

 

[Mercury]

I think you may want to define exactly what 'free will' means to you.

That would insure you and others are actually talking about the same thing.

It's a deep subject and one that has been debated by philosophers for 100s of years.

I see a distinction between two things, those being FREE WILL and FREE (limited) CHOICE

I asked AI to help explain the two as I was sure it would do a better job than I could. Here's the outcome:

Example of Free Will:​

Scenario: Imagine a person named Alex who is faced with the decision of whether to help a stranger in need or walk past without offering assistance. Alex feels an internal struggle but ultimately decides to help the stranger.


Explanation: Free will refers to the ability to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or external influences. In this scenario, Alex's decision to help the stranger reflects his capacity to act according to his own volition, independent of external pressures or predetermined factors. Free will emphasizes the internal aspect of decision-making and the belief that individuals have the power to choose their actions.

Example of Free Choice:​

Scenario: Alex is at a restaurant and must choose between a salad, a burger, or a pasta dish for dinner. After considering the options, Alex decides to order the burger.


Explanation: Free choice refers to the act of selecting from available options based on personal preferences, desires, or reasoning. In this case, Alex has the freedom to choose among several predetermined options (salad, burger, pasta) based on his tastes or hunger. Free choice emphasizes the selection process among available alternatives rather than the underlying ability to make choices.

Key Differences:​

1. Nature of the Concept:
   • Free Will: Focuses on the broader philosophical idea of autonomy and the ability to make choices independent of external constraints or influences.
   • Free Choice: Centers on the act of selecting from available options based on personal preferences or circumstances.
2. Scope:
   • Free Will: Encompasses the overall capacity to make decisions and take actions, often involving moral or ethical considerations.
   • Free Choice: Is more about the specific act of choosing between options that are already presented.
3. Determinism vs. Autonomy:
   • Free Will: Engages with questions of determinism and whether our choices are truly free or influenced by prior events.
   • Free Choice: Deals with the practical aspects of making decisions within a framework of available alternatives.

In summary, while both concepts involve the idea of making decisions, free will is about the fundamental ability to choose freely, whereas free choice is about the selection process among given options.


So to be clear, FREE WILL only applies when there are choices that are not determined by prior causes or external influences.

I submit that trapped as we are on Planet Earth and held within the social slave system that has been here for 1000s of years, that we ARE NOT FREE of external influences. Our very make-up is determined by where we grew up, who parented us, who we were with during our childhood and what others taught us. Hence if you are born in the US or UK you are far more likely to head towards Christianity than say Islam and if you were born in the Middle East it would likely be the opposite.

We are not free. We are conditioned slaves who don't have the ability to reprogramme ourselves and remove memories and experiences unless you volunteer for a labotomy of course !

We make choices on a daily basis but those are always choices from available options and most often we don't get to decide what those options are, they are foistered upon us.

Hence you can choose to go to work by car, bus, train, bicycle or walking there but you are not free to choose to teleport there. Teleportation is not an available option.

God on the other hand has no such limitations to his choices. He can teleport at WILL if he desires or he can choose to be everywhere at all times thus negating the need for travel at all !

All you have as a human is limited free choice. Nothing more.

That is not free will.

 

[Frankj]

It's a deep subject and one that has been debated by philosophers for 100s of years.

I see a distinction between two things, those being FREE WILL and FREE (limited) CHOICE

I asked AI to help explain the two as I was sure it would do a better job than I could. Here's the outcome:

Example of Free Will:​

Scenario: Imagine a person named Alex who is faced with the decision of whether to help a stranger in need or walk past without offering assistance. Alex feels an internal struggle but ultimately decides to help the stranger.


Explanation: Free will refers to the ability to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or external influences. In this scenario, Alex's decision to help the stranger reflects his capacity to act according to his own volition, independent of external pressures or predetermined factors. Free will emphasizes the internal aspect of decision-making and the belief that individuals have the power to choose their actions.

Example of Free Choice:​

Scenario: Alex is at a restaurant and must choose between a salad, a burger, or a pasta dish for dinner. After considering the options, Alex decides to order the burger.


Explanation: Free choice refers to the act of selecting from available options based on personal preferences, desires, or reasoning. In this case, Alex has the freedom to choose among several predetermined options (salad, burger, pasta) based on his tastes or hunger. Free choice emphasizes the selection process among available alternatives rather than the underlying ability to make choices.

Key Differences:​

1. Nature of the Concept:
   • Free Will: Focuses on the broader philosophical idea of autonomy and the ability to make choices independent of external constraints or influences.
   • Free Choice: Centers on the act of selecting from available options based on personal preferences or circumstances.
2. Scope:
   • Free Will: Encompasses the overall capacity to make decisions and take actions, often involving moral or ethical considerations.
   • Free Choice: Is more about the specific act of choosing between options that are already presented.
3. Determinism vs. Autonomy:
   • Free Will: Engages with questions of determinism and whether our choices are truly free or influenced by prior events.
   • Free Choice: Deals with the practical aspects of making decisions within a framework of available alternatives.

In summary, while both concepts involve the idea of making decisions, free will is about the fundamental ability to choose freely, whereas free choice is about the selection process among given options.


So to be clear, FREE WILL only applies when there are choices that are not determined by prior causes or external influences.

I submit that trapped as we are on Planet Earth and held within the social slave system that has been here for 1000s of years, that we ARE NOT FREE of external influences. Our very make-up is determined by where we grew up, who parented us, who we were with during our childhood and what others taught us. Hence if you are born in the US or UK you are far more likely to head towards Christianity than say Islam and if you were born in the Middle East it would likely be the opposite.

We are not free. We are conditioned slaves who don't have the ability to reprogramme ourselves and remove memories and experiences unless you volunteer for a labotomy of course !

We make choices on a daily basis but those are always choices from available options and most often we don't get to decide what those options are, they are foistered upon us.

Hence you can choose to go to work by car, bus, train, bicycle or walking there but you are not free to choose to teleport there. Teleportation is not an available option.

God on the other hand has no such limitations to his choices. He can teleport at WILL if he desires or he can choose to be everywhere at all times thus negating the need for travel at all !

All you have as a human is limited free choice. Nothing more.

That is not free will.

Ponder this: When you come to a fork in the road, take it.

 

[Mercury]

Ponder this:

Why am I limited to use the road?
Why must the road only provide 2 forking options?
Why must I travel at all instead of just willing myself to be wherever I want to be?
Why am I stuck here on Earth ? Why can't I will myself to be on Neptune?

 

[Frankj]

Ponder this:

Why am I limited to use the road?
Why must the road only provide 2 forking options?
Why must I travel at all instead of just willing myself to be wherever I want to be?
Why am I stuck here on Earth ? Why can't I will myself to be on Neptune?

So you're now starting to grasp free will. You can alter any of those situations by the freedom of your will to create different ones or choose between the options available as you please.

We can't control the nature of reality, but we can choose what we do in relation to it.

 

[Mercury]

We can't control the nature of reality, but we can choose what we do in relation to it.

If we can't control the environment we find ourselves in then we are not free. Any choices we make are bound by those circumstances.
So again all you are referring to are limited choices where we don't have the freedom to determine the available options.

We have free limited choice, but not free will.

 

[Mercury]

You can alter any of those situations by the freedom of your will to create different ones

So how do I will myself to be on Neptune again?

 

[Uncle_Sol]

... we can infer that yes, God does condemn some people for not being able to fully understand.


No, but I have to understand enough about it for my brain to form beliefs about it.

Not sure of the weight of "we can". There is a minority of us for whom the browbeating media hogs are not an authority. Your wording in this half-sentence seems like offering an extreme case (which they as usual insufficiently argue) in the hope that some of us would emerge with more penetrating insight. That is why your next sentence is exactly spot on.

Given that the Old and New Testaments are a diatribe against the imposing of bad religion by religious authorities, the ones who need to fear God most are those who ride roughshod over ordinary people's right to their belief-forming as quality and activity and their discovery of its content. Those bad authorities are the ones that don't understand enough.

 

[Uncle_Sol]

from post 18 by Mercury:

any deity that operates thus is completely bogus and certainly not remotely omnibenevolent but rather is a tyrant and malevolent.

This is simple critical thinking.

Such thinking should identify to any sane person that something is not at all right with the Christian proposition. We must have misunderstood something.

Yes, there is as it happens not only one "christian" proposition, an alternative (minority) one is that malicious browbeating media hogs among religion lords invented the foregoing.

In Nature and history there are constraints.

Just as alchemy leaders make deep statements, a "God" of a minority of Christians made deep statements also.

I think I've given (partial) detail somewhere and you can search on my posts.

 

[Uncle_Sol]

Ponder this:

Why am I limited to use the road?
Why must the road only provide 2 forking options?
Why must I travel at all instead of just willing myself to be wherever I want to be?

Picking up on your assertion of critical thinking which I emphatically support, we were "given" (a synonym for somehow find ourselves with) a mind with capability. The logic, a vast tool for exploring honesty, in ourselves mysteriously turns out to accord with respective logic in things.

Thus, method offers us the possibility of exploring more than one point at a time, prioritising (analogue style) between several, and so on. Sadly it fell out of fashion to teach the public visual, spatial and analogue thinking.

Imagination is the laboratory atop your shoulders and many "Christians" need more of it (only not the vain kind). Thus the thinking I describe is one part of the travel. That is a starting and continuing point for how you who are seekers can pursue your whole search and needn't give up.

Spatial thinking helps one see the many layers of existence, essence and relation. Morals were meant to be about true morale, a good heart, the opposite of hype. Language is co-creative and doesn't reify. Constraint is the form of opportunity.

I don't know what was the viewpoint you are contending with but what I'm describing is applicable to all issues whatever, and by you personally, for you. My knowledge and method doesn't belong to any religious organisation. Some religious leaders, tragically, and whom I reject, claimed that we are not persons.

 

[Mercury]

On the contrary, humbling myself made me seem Him as a dictator.

Indeed this is the only rational and logical conclusion anyone can come to if they are honest with themselves and are prepared to use critical thinking. If God exists then he MUST by definition be a dictator for he is setting out the conditions and rules by which HE WANTS (nay demands!) humans to live and behave and failure to comply results in threat of violence / eternal damnation.

This is simultaneously why there can not be any free will involved for any choice made under threat of violence is not a free choice.

Also, how do you know that you're humbling yourself in front of the right God?

Also a very pertinent question. The more relevant question is whether or not any prospective god or entity is displaying a moral compass as humans would frame it? As humans do we think that killing people is morally right? Is killing women morally right? Is killing children morally right? Is killing babies or as yet unborn babies morally right?

We can only think and act in our capacity of being humans. So we have to apply OUR moral standards to any prospective entity. If we do not do this then we are blindly following an entity without any consideration of moral compass and in so doing would be forced to make all kinds of apologetic excuses for any perceived immoral actions that entity engages in. Such would be akin to worshipping Hitler imo and making any and all excuses for his extermination of thousands of people. Surely we should be more discerning than this?

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).

This is concrete logic which is why it won't be received well amongst some here. Even the most casual amount of critical thinking quickly reveals the fact that God could be OMNIPOTENT or he could be OMNIBENEVOLENT but HE CAN NOT BE BOTH.

One only needs to consider the wicked practice of the sexual abuse of innocent children to dispel the myth that God could be both Omnis.

A god with the power to prevent the sexual abuse of innocent children but does not can not be OmniBenevolent (all-loving). He would be indifferent/uncaring.

A god who is all-loving and yet fails to save innocent children from sexual abuse is IMPOTENT. He weeps to see the children being abused but is powerless to prevent it.

God can not be BOTH all-powerful and all-loving.

This leaves humans with a difficult dilemma.

Should we worship any entity that is not all-powerful? Civilisations across the world have done so for countless years from ancient Egypt, Sumarian, Babylonians through to the Greeks and Romans who revered many lesser gods not to mention Norse mythology to boot.

Should we worship any entity that is all-powerful but is at the same time not all-loving, who is totally indifferent to humans and their suffering and who may indeed be tyrannical, willing to murder humans on a whim whenever he gets angry?

What are humans to do?

Even if there exist otherworldly considerations which no human could ever comprehend, the fact is we ARE HUMAN and thus we can only think and act as humans. Our capacity to understand anything can only be done in the context of us being human. Hence we have to appraise and assess everything as humans and with our own in-built moral compass.

It appears to me that Christians have decided to worship an entity who by human moral standards has failed to protect humanity from harms and suffering (i.e. indifferent) and who has a documented history of killing humans (OT) and as a result all those people are essentially forced to become apologetics for their god's actions and inactions in order to somehow validate their belief system.

Overall I find this practice of having to be an apologetic for a chosen god to be damaging for humanity and society as a whole.

 

[Lamb]

Indeed this is the only rational and logical conclusion anyone can come to if they are honest with themselves and are prepared to use critical thinking. If God exists then he MUST by definition be a dictator for he is setting out the conditions and rules by which HE WANTS (nay demands!) humans to live and behave and failure to comply results in threat of violence / eternal damnation.

This is simultaneously why there can not be any free will involved for any choice made under threat of violence is not a free choice.




Also a very pertinent question. The more relevant question is whether or not any prospective god or entity is displaying a moral compass as humans would frame it? As humans do we think that killing people is morally right? Is killing women morally right? Is killing children morally right? Is killing babies or as yet unborn babies morally right?

We can only think and act in our capacity of being humans. So we have to apply OUR moral standards to any prospective entity. If we do not do this then we are blindly following an entity without any consideration of moral compass and in so doing would be forced to make all kinds of apologetic excuses for any perceived immoral actions that entity engages in. Such would be akin to worshipping Hitler imo and making any and all excuses for his extermination of thousands of people. Surely we should be more discerning than this?



This is concrete logic which is why it won't be received well amongst some here. Even the most casual amount of critical thinking quickly reveals the fact that God could be OMNIPOTENT or he could be OMNIBENEVOLENT but HE CAN NOT BE BOTH.

One only needs to consider the wicked practice of the sexual abuse of innocent children to dispel the myth that God could be both Omnis.

A god with the power to prevent the sexual abuse of innocent children but does not can not be OmniBenevolent (all-loving). He would be indifferent/uncaring.

A god who is all-loving and yet fails to save innocent children from sexual abuse is IMPOTENT. He weeps to see the children being abused but is powerless to prevent it.

God can not be BOTH all-powerful and all-loving.

This leaves humans with a difficult dilemma.

Should we worship any entity that is not all-powerful? Civilisations across the world have done so for countless years from ancient Egypt, Sumarian, Babylonians through to the Greeks and Romans who revered many lesser gods not to mention Norse mythology to boot.

Should we worship any entity that is all-powerful but is at the same time not all-loving, who is totally indifferent to humans and their suffering and who may indeed be tyrannical, willing to murder humans on a whim whenever he gets angry?

What are humans to do?

Even if there exist otherworldly considerations which no human could ever comprehend, the fact is we ARE HUMAN and thus we can only think and act as humans. Our capacity to understand anything can only be done in the context of us being human. Hence we have to appraise and assess everything as humans and with our own in-built moral compass.

It appears to me that Christians have decided to worship an entity who by human moral standards has failed to protect humanity from harms and suffering (i.e. indifferent) and who has a documented history of killing humans (OT) and as a result all those people are essentially forced to become apologetics for their god's actions and inactions in order to somehow validate their belief system.

Overall I find this practice of having to be an apologetic for a chosen god to be damaging for humanity and society as a whole.

This type of talk, against God is not going to be permitted. You've been told before in other threads, so you'll be placed on Moderator Queue where staff has to approve all of your posts to guarantee that you don't cross the line here again. Remember, this is a Christian haven.

 

[Uncle_Sol]

from Mercury's 38: Overall I find this practice of having to be an apologetic for a chosen god to be damaging for humanity and society as a whole.

Your finding, accurate in itself of the teachers you follow and their "god" - whom I have never had but that's just me - is because you are not critical of the way and "rationale" they have done this.

Technically that makes you an ephemeral but not intentional agnostic, which is why you imagine you are a fundamentalist. You are struggling, but you don't have a sense of owning your struggle or your travel.

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

(This error invaded much religion while a number of H's secular pupils reverted to reality.)

You will always come across someone with length of perspective. You should try it yourself!

Hanson - Sure About It ( under 3 mins )

Happy travelling!