Family Man

I've never been impressed with the Free Will Defense, for a number of reasons. But I have three objections in particular that bothers me that I've never seen discussed in any depth (and pardon me if they have). I'd like to know if these seem sound to others on this board.

First, it seems to be that the Free Will Defense begs the question entirely. While the Problem of Evil looks at a common formulation of God as being perfect and comes to the conclusion that the state of the world precludes such a God, the FWD assumes that such god exists in its attempt to explain the problem away. It would seem to me that any defense against the POE would need to do so without making the presumption of God first.

Second, the FWD doesn't even address the point of the POE. The POE looks at evil at the world, and notes that not only that an omnimax God would have the ability, knowledge, and desire to eliminate evil, his nature would require him to. In other words, a god can't be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent and still permit evil. A god that permits evil through the mechanism of free will is still permitting evil -- and therefore is either not perfect or doesn't exist. The FWD simply hand-waves at the point the POE is making.

Finally, how do we know that God wants us to have free will? I know that is what certain Christians think, but even if I assume God exists I can't assume that the opinions of Christians match up with what God desires. In other words, how do we know that the FWD isn't just an ad hoc formulation by theists in an attempt to defeat an argument by their opponents?

ReasonableDoubt

I know what you mean. I've tried to argue with the FWD's that no matter how you slice it, the bottom line is God is responsible. If he created the universe, if he created people's "free will," then he is ultimately responsible. I fail to see how the FWD solves anything.
I've also argued that those holding to the free will view seem to start with the assumption that we have free will- like it is a given, and does not need to be proved. THat is b/c it is so essential to their view of God.
To be fair not all theists believe in free will. Some believe that God did indeed create evil, as he explains in the OT, and that there is good reason for it, that he allows or controls it, but we don't know why.
To me it seems that the only way evil is compatible with the existence of God is if there is a dual entity- such as the devil or whatever you'd call it, with equal powers to God such that God cannot eliminate it. Of course then this dispenses with the being which no greater can be conceived idea.

Silent Acorns

In my opinion, the only way to attack the POE from a theist (note: I'm not a theist) perspective is to use the "greater good" argument. Basically, this means that the evil we see is required in order that a greater good can be obtained. Like putting up with the pain of surgery to obtain the good of a cure. Any other tactic either fails to address the issue or is a "greater good" argument in disguise.

As such, I feel that the FWD is just a special case of the GG argument, namely that Free Will is a good that can only be obtained by allowing for a little evil, which is itself minimized.

Of course, to actually support this claim a theist must show that Free Will is both a sufficient good and that Free WIll requires ALL the evil we see to obtain. In other words, one must believe that the Nazi Holocaust was a good thing because it allowed a greater good ( i.e. Free Will) to obtain that otherwise wouldn't have been.

I've never seen a theist try to do this. They seem to be content to just say "Free Will/Greater Good ... there's an opening ..." and leave it at that.

Family Man

Even then, it stills suffers the three problems I pointed out above: it begs the question; it still requires an imperfect god; and we don't really know whether it is what God really wants anyway (assuming he exists). Throw in your problem: does this unspecified greater good really cancel out the evil we see in the world?

To me, both the FWD and the GG are intellectual vacuous arguments designed solely to make theists feel good about their beliefs.

Family Man

Agreed. Let's put that fourth on the list.

In addition, it doesn't seem like it is a necessary part of God. After all, if free will means that our thoughts aren't controlled by an outside entity (i.e. God) then if there is no God then we must have free will, right? Even if it could be proven that we have free will it wouldn't mean that God exists. They have to prove both that God exists and that he wants us to have free will.

PandaJoe

<rabidpatriotism>
The Holocaust allowed the US of A to enter war and escape the Depression. God wanted it to happen because we are <irony> his chosen people!</irony>
God Blesserize America!
</rabidpatriotism>

You should also note that free-will negates any notion of "God's Plan" or miracle of any sort. And requiring us to conform to his moral code or be cast into hell is against our free will as well. Unless they want to claim he gives us limited free will (which is really a contradiciton in terms), it doesn't really fit with any religion other than deism.

Zadok001

Isn't free will limited regardless? I can will that I be capable of flight independant of outside interference. It doesn't happen. Obviously, my free will must be limited. In this case, by physical laws. Since God created physical laws, we can conclude that God limited my free will.

Whoops.

Amos

The problem here is the definition of free will. As humans are free to act but since we are divided in our own mind are we not free to chose and so there are two forces acting upon our will. Note that in this division are we both "God" and "like God" from Gen.3:5).

Evil, pain and suffering only exist in our conscious mind and are therefore illusions. It is because we are divided in our mind that pain and suffering is perceived and has nothing to do with God wherein only we are free as solitary individuals (Freeman). The will of God is wherein we are divided with the will of our ego consciousness and it is because our ego is an illusion that we search for recognition and fame. While we are engaged in this search we create evil, pain and suffering and so it is not God but the ego that is yearning for relief from pain and suffering. In the end God does not care that we punish ourselves, not even if we punish our whole life away.

Family Man

Amos -- Thank you for responding but I have no clue what your response has to do with my post.

Wiploc

Actually, we non-believers carry the burden of proof here. With the PoE, we undertake to prove that a particular kind of god cannot exist.

The FWD attempts to refute that claim. If the FWD succeeds, then the theists will have accomplished a lot: instead of saying god can't exist, we'll have to settle for saying there is no reason to believe in him.

The FWD does not purport to be a proof of god's existence. It merely trys to refute a proof of god's non-existence.



A lot of Christians don't really believe god is truly omnipotent. They believe he is all-powerful except that he cannot violate the laws of logic. I don't know how they justify this to themselves, but they do believe it. And they still call him omnipotent even though they think he is punk in this regard. Call him "nominally omnipotent," or, "punk omnipotent." He can't make a square circle. He can't make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it.

You can dismiss them, saying, "Well, that god isn't truely omnipotent, therefore I win my point." Or you can play in their arena. Since the PoE still works in that arena, I go ahead and play. I say that even if god is bound by logic, the PoE proves that he doesn't exist.

But in that case, the FWD does address the issue. If a punk-omnipotent god can't give us freewill without giving us evil, and if freewill is more valuable than the lack of evil, then god really could make a world with evil in it and have that be the best of all possible worlds.



The FWD doesn't even try to prove this. If it merely shows that evil could co-exist with a "perfect" god, then it has done its job. If the FWD shows that their god could exist, it can allow Christians to try to show that he does exist by the use of other arguments.

crc