Philosoft

It seems a number of current threads in various places contain variations of the "God is not responsible for evil because humans have free will" defense. Rather than haphazardly post my challenges in one or more of those threads, I'll consolidate here. And, since I don't feel this is strictly philosophical yet, I'm opening in GRD. Now then...

As the free-will defense commonly goes, God is absolved of blame for a person's evil decisions because the choice to do evil or not is entirely the person's. So, what does it mean to say a person makes a "choice"? What are the possible causes of a decision?

~ Free will, by definition, excludes causation by an external, willful agent.

~ Libertarian free will, which denies all internal determination, is universally unsatisfying.

What we're left with is a form of free will that includes some measure of experiential determination, personal ways of reacting to experiences, and perhaps some final decision-making process. At this point, I am unable to conceive of a combination of causative forces that completely removes God from the equation. The aforementioned "finalizing process" must be a determined process, else it ends up in a quagmire of causative regress. The determining factors themselves are certainly not always within the control of the individual to experience. The personal reactions must also be based on determined paradigms.

What I'm looking for is a piece of the decision-making equation that is arguably within the full control of the individual. It would need to withstand my charges that some degree of determination is present at all points during the process.

Radorth

Well I have never removed him from the equation, or said it's all one way or the other. I've stated on several occasions that "he took his share of the reponsibility" for our failings, via the cross. He is well aware of our infirmities and weaknesses.

While other religions and philosophies insist on self-salvation, Christianity does not. We see this over and over in the NT. Jesus comes to fulfill the law because God knows we cannot. While you can argue he is not taking reponsibility directly, he might as well be.

"The strength of sin is the law." God knows law is useless, if we don't. It's primary value is to show us how short we fall.

"he wills and works in us the things that please him" He fulfills the law in us, by giving us supernatural gifts

"Of my own self, I can do nothing" Jesus tells us. So it seems God does not even hold him responsible in a strict sense.

The Bible is quite clear that we have choices to make, but in the end, it's primary message is salvation from our own weakness and ignorance and inability to help ourselves. The most important choice we can ever make is not to fulfil the law, but to acknowledge our shortcomings. Thus the humble prostitute is saved and the Pharisse and legalist are lost. If God were shirking all responsibility, he would just be saying "Do it or burn." IMO he has always bent over backwards to prevent our condemnation, from the Exodus on.

Just saying "He made us, so he alone is reponsible for our faults" begs the question of what he DID do to save us all. At the very least he made it so a common thief could be saved merely for acknowledging Jesus for who he was. I have no doubt he allows for all kinds of weaknesses, poverty, poor upbringinging and other circumstances beyond our control.

It is for these reasons he imputes righteousness as needed, and I believe it is those who claim they are fully responsible for all their actions are claiming some unattainable righteousness of their own. And it is ironically these who so often find excuses for their faults and blame others. They yak about personal responsibility, yet in the next brath they will say "If God exists it's his fault. If he doesn't exist, it's the theist's fault."

Rad

xeren

Philosoft,
I'm a little confused about what you are asking for.

Are you saying that, two one degree, or another, if God exists, he is responsible for the way we are, and as a result, responsible for our evil deeds that we choose to commit?

Well, I can end this discussion right now by saying that God didn't have to make original sin a heritable trait. He didn't have to make it so that humans are sinful, but he did anyways. Therefore god is responsible for any evil that humans choose to do.

I know that doesn't actually go as deep into determinism as you may have wanted to go, so I await a dumbed down version of your original post so I can understand what you are asking a little better.

-xeren

davidH

Put it this way, God created humans with the ability to make their own decisions.

We all decide and choose - we do this on waying up the options.

Would you argue that humans don't have free will? If they don't have free will - then who controls them?

If evolution created humans then it is impossible for us to have anything but free will. Maybe you could explain to me how evolution could give rise to us without free will - and explain why that allows me to choose and do whatever I want.

(Please don't give the arguement that we don't have free will because we cannot fly like and be like superman etc )

xeren

davidH:

Think about this:

If two twins were brought up in identical universes, had identical brain structure, and identical experiences throughout their lives, and then you pose an identical dilemna to each of them, is there any reason to suppose that they would be able to decide differently than their twin?

I would say no. If you want to say yes, then you must show what mechanism it is that would allow them to choose differently.

And if this is the case, each of our thoughts and decisions are simply based on how our brains interact with the outside world. So, at any given moment, with any given decision, you couldn't have done otherwise than you decided to do.

I wouldn't call that free will.


Philosoft,

If I'm already hijacking your thread, and I have a feeling I am, tell me, and I'll start a new one.

-xeren

Philosoft

I guess what I'm looking for is a mechanism or a process that is demonstrably non-determined. There seem to be many things involved in free-will decision making that are beyond the conscious control of the individual; I don't imagine that is much in dispute. But I'm unsatisfied with the common Christian reasoning that adds another layer called "choice," which is some fully internalized yet unspecified process. I don't understand why this unspecified process is the only thing that matters.

Proxima Centauri

The Bible says,

Quote:

For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. (Romans, 3:23)

According to the Bible we cannot freely choose never to sin. Therefore Christianity teaches we cannot have completely free will. Christians overlook this.

Shadowy Man

This is all fine and dandy, but then people go on about how God did this in their lives or did that... or they pray for change or claim that God interfered and saved their grandmother from cancer... etc.

So, which is it? Do we have free will, making our own decisions, or does God interact with us? I don't see how you can have it both ways.

Magus55

You can always choose not to sin, you just won't always be successful. You still have complete free will to choose. By using your free will to accept Jesus as your saviour, you are admitting to him that you don't like to sin and are trying not to. The fact that you will fail sometimes doesn't mean you didn't have the choice to try not to.

Mageth

You can always choose not to sin, you just won't always be successful. You still have complete free will to choose. By using your free will to accept Jesus as your saviour, you are admitting to him that you don't like to sin and are trying not to. The fact that you will fail sometimes doesn't mean you didn't have the choice to try not to.

You miss the point. The bible says "For all have sinned..." In other words, no one can choose never to sin according to the bible. If free will were true and complete, one should be able to choose never to sin. If that path is closed to all of us, our free will is limited.