winstonjen

It's because lambs can't think for themselves.

Asha'man

So, you don't believe in smoke detectors for the house? You don't believe in building codes that prevent ungrounded electrical systems? Safety standards for furnaces to prevent carbon monoxide?

What about cars, do you believe in seat belts? Air bags? Do you think they remove your free will to be horribly mangled in a crash?

Pyrrho

What difference does that make? The important thing to note is that we can know that God has not kept us from sticking our fingers into electrical outlets (as well as all of the other bad things that people do). Whatever people do, God has allowed it. Evidently, Jamie_L is a better father than God.

Pyrrho

The Bible contradicts that, as there are stories where He intervenes without people asking for it. For just one example, Mary did not ask to be impregnated; she was told, by an angel, that she would be impregnated (according to Luke chapter 1). God didn't even have the nerve to tell her himself, but sent an angel to do this in his place (just like many men, wouldn't you say?).

But more importantly, people are often confusing the exercise of one's "free will" with "free will". Your will can be "free" without you being able to achieve what you want to achieve. This can happen whenever two people compete for a single thing, as two runners trying to win a race. The winner does not make the loser lose his or her "free will"; the loser simply lost the race. The "will" of the person is untouched. To suppose otherwise would mean that the only way anyone could really have "free will" would be if one were omnipotent, as there are always things that one cannot achieve. So humans, not being omnipotent, couldn't possibly have "free will" if it means that we can do whatever we want. But really, it is only the exercise of one's will that is impeded. (Just for the sake of argument, I have been writing as if "free will" actually made sense, and as if it applied to humans, both of which are questionable.)

To bring this to the issue of God and intervention, imagine all of us standing in a parking lot, and at the other end of the parking lot, we see someone brutally beating, raping, and killing another person. While this is going on, one of you way "Hey, we better do something" (like call the police or whatever), but I say, "NO! That guy is just exercising his FREE WILL, and we should not interfere!" In this case, you would all probably judge me to be a monster, but, of course, I would be doing EXACTLY what God does in ALL cases where someone is brutally beaten, raped, and killed. We KNOW that God doesn't stop it whenever it is not stopped. I, in this imaginary case, would be following God's example, if I behaved so monstrously. This kind of example shows the insanity of saying that "free will" somehow excuses one from intervention.

K

Jamie_L:

That's not enough. If you want to show the kind of love God shows, you should first allow her to stick her finger in the outlet. After she does, you should banish her to her room for the rest of her life for being disobedient. That is, unless she falls to her knees proclaiming her unworthyness before you and can still manage to love you for being so merciful.

winstonjen

And don't even think about letting her eat dessert again.

njhartsh

What a fantastic post! I have never seen such a comprehensive three-paragraph refutation of the Free Will Defense.

Major kudos, Pyrrho. Can you do the Soul-Making Defense next?

- Nathan