primemover

Free-Will creates the possibility of evil. If there are no choices that can be made then nothing evil exists. However, if one can make a choice and that choice can be viewed in a moral framework, then Evil can enter the picture.

I know that many people on these boards would say that they agree that Free-Will is an illusion and therefore Evil does not exist. It is only a deterministic universe playing out actions that can not be avoided.

I don't understand a hard deterministic view of the world. I mean it seems that we have free will from numerous view points. If we do not have free will and we are just biological robots what causes so many humans to do things against our nature? If I am programed to survive and do things to enrich myself, then why am I able lay my life down for others?

Free-will is part of who we are. To deny our free-will would be like choping off our head in order to save our body. I have little doubt that medical science could (or will eventually be able to) help keep a headless body alive, but would it really be a person at that point.

God revealing Himself to us would not deny our freewill, but it may make it more preferable to think, believe, act or feel one way more than another. This happens anytime we are given more information.

God could show Himself to a million Atheists and a large percentage of them may contine not to believe in Him.

Primemover

xeren

1) Determinism and the resulting lack of free will does not preclude anyone from doing something against their nature. Yes, you are hard wired with certain things before you were born, but why can't a person learn to go against their nature throughout the rest of their life.

2) I also don't understand how free will would answer the question to why someone would do something against their nature. What aspect of freewill decides to "go against our nature" at some points in time, while at other times to "follow our nature".

Let's not hijack the thread, so if you want to continue this, i suggest you start a new post

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by primemover:

"I don't understand a hard deterministic view of the world. I mean it seems that we have free will from numerous view points. If we do not have free will and we are just biological robots what causes so many humans to do things against our nature? If I am programed to survive and do things to enrich myself, then why am I able lay my life down for others?"

There are several naturalistic explanations for altruism. One of them is that it is often rewarded later by another member of a group, and another is that if you're altruistic toward close family members, that increases the chances of your genes being passed down.

The hard determinist simply says that our decisions are either caused or they aren't. If they are, then they're not free, and if they aren't, then they're random and ipso facto not free either.

Silent Acorns

I personally believe that the "Free Will Defense" of the "Agrument from Evil" is just a specific example of the "Greater Goods Defense". My reasoning is as follows:

1) the core of the "Argument from Evil" is that an Omni-God would prevent needless suffering, and that suffering exists.

2) the Omni-God theist must therefore claim that suffering isn't needless.

3) the "Greater Good Defense" claims that there is a greater good that requires our suffering to obtain.

4) the "Free Will Defense" claims that our suffering is required in order for us to have free will and that the Omni-God values free will.

5) therefore, the FWD simply uses free will as an example of a "Greater Good".

Any thoughts?

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: Silent Acorns ]</p>

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Silent Acorns:

"Any thoughts?"

Yes, the free will defense does posit a greater good requiring every instance of evil, and as such is vulnerable to most "greater good" criticisms.

Hayden

Thanks for replying - the only theist to do so thus far, unless I'm mistaken. I'd have replied sooner, but I've been in a place called Christchurch, of all things, and not handy to an internet connection (me that is, not the city).

Besides your denial that our nature contains any nobility, there are biological reasons for laying down our lives for others. For example, giving your life in defence of your family allows your progeny to survive, carrying on your bloodline. Giving your life for your country helps your particular society to flourish ("macro-biology", if you will).

I've heard it said that our "sin-nature" is part also part of who we are. Does denying that part of ourselves make us less of a person?

Interesting that you feel this way.

Of course it does. It would be ridiculous to claim "God's making lions look scary denies our free-will, by causing us to run away from them". However, at this point we're assuming the free-will defense itself is true, and concentrating on the moral dilemma presented to God at this point, i.e. the value of our souls versus the value of our free will.

Does it then follow that a corresponding percentage would? If 300,000 atheists could be saved from hell, is that not worth the effort, and a fair bit of collateral damage?

HR

PS Excuse me everyone if I've committed a blunder in using the term "macro-biology". I'm trying to express the concept of a number of organisms behaving as one organism, much as a single organism consists of a number of cells. I'd appreciate learning the correct term for this, if there is one.

Hayden

Bump, just once.

Synaesthesia

One thing I find is often forgotten is that there are two seperate arguments from evil.

One is based upon consistency. It asserts that omnibenevolence and evil are incompatible. This version can be refuted simply because God can do anything from holding free will to be the ultimate in benevolence or simply modifying the law of non-contradiction. As I've pointed out elsewhere, theistic consistency is trivial.

The stronger argument from evil is evidential. It points out that the evidence strongly opposes the idea that there is a God who cares a whit about our feelings. Whether or not we can make a consistent God who is all-good, the evidence cries against it.