Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by bd-from-kg :

I would expect the theist to take the latter, and define omniscience not to include foreknowledge.

This is an important point, one I neglected to mention.

I think the theist would say that there is no possible world in which these humans choose evil, because God is continually guiding the actual world such that these conditions do not obtain.

This is another good point.

I happen to agree, but I was hoping to proceed without having to demonstrate that.

ReasonableDoubt

Tw1tch:

"...nor does it need to. Suffering exists...a ramification of separation from God."

Why are we separated from God? B/c of our choice? Who created the universe knowing full well in advance that most would choose to commit acts that would bring unspeakable amounts of evil?

Freedomless freedom? How about limited freedom? We've all got that right now. We aren't free to fly, we aren't free to choose when we're born or where we're born, etc.

Basically you're just rehashing this FWD by saying that unlimited freedom is justification for all the evil in the world. You haven't really addressed the points that go beyond this "simple" answer.

God values mankind more than the decisions mankind may make? I don't understand this. Are you now saying that mankind is more important than freedom? If God values mankind more than their decisions, then why, under the FWD, is freedom the most important value, and why does God allow that freedom to be used to the detriment of mankind?

And if you're saying there is free will in heaven b/c we freely choose to be there, is there a chance that there will be a rebellion in heaven and that evil may creep into heaven? That must be the case if you're saying there's free will there.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by tw1tch :

Not necessarily. It's remotely plausible that some evil is required for greater goods, just not that all this evil is.

Question-begging. My position is that we'd still be free enough, despite these minor adjustments.

Then change (4) to:
(4') FWD doesn't explain why freedom of people to perform evil actions is so important.

Non sequitur. I don't agree that they'd be robots. They'd be pretty much exactly like us, except that some of them choose evil less than their actual-world counterparts do.

Please see my "Explanation and Elaboration" section, where I point out that the Bible indicates that God does see the future.

There's still no free will in heaven. Please read my "Explanation and Elaboration" section to see where you've failed to answer my point. The modus ponens is impeccable.

(A) If no evil and suffering somewhere then no free will there.
(B) No evil and suffering in heaven.
(C) Therefore, no free will in heaven.

To avoid this argument, you have to deny (A). But that amounts to concession that FWD fails, that God could remove evil and suffering without the logical implication that free will wouldn't exist.

tw1tch

Thomas,

What evidence can you give that this is not the 'plausible' amount of evil?


'Free enough'? For what?


It's not that 'freedom to perform evil' is important. It's that 'freedom' is.

What would this solve? Mankind would still be separated from God...AND mankind would be robots. Seems a very strange request.


You misunderstand. It's not that God doesn't know. It's that He values mankind more than mankinds decisions. If He valued mankinds decsions more than mankind itself...he could have made robots who only 'choose' Him.


He could have, He just didn't want to.

He didn't want mere robots...creating only those beings who would love Him. He wants people who choose Him of their own accord...not because they were manufactured that way.

Thus is life: the period of time allotted to each of us to make our decision.


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by tw1tch :

God prohibits very minor offenses (shocking people with our fingers, causing people to trip while they're walking on sidewalks via snapping our fingers, giving people headaches by staring at them) and allows very major offenses (murder, rape, torture). This doesn't make any sense, and FWD doesn't attempt to explain it.

For God. Free enough so that we're not robots.

Then God should remove our freedom to perform evil.

There'd be less suffering in the world: That's what it would solve.

This completely fails to answer my point, so much so that I'm wondering whether we're talking about the same argument. If God sees the future, there's no libertarian free will. If God knows what I'm going to do, there's no chance of me doing anything else.

Once again, this is totally irrelevant to my argument about there being no free will in Heaven. If you disagree with that point, please criticize (A) or (B) of the argument I offered in the previous post.

GunnerJ

So, in the end, it comes down to god's selfish desire for willing slaves. And yes, it is selfish, in that it is only considers his benefit, and disregards how adversely it effects others. It certainly isn't to my benefit that I have the capacity to reject all god beliefs and religion as unfounded, thus incuring eternal torment because of the off chance that one of them turns out to be right. Only your selfish, emotionally needy god benefits from such an arangement.

rainbow walking

Hi Thomas,
Mind if I take a stab at these?

Let’s see if there’s enough left to dine out after we pay the bills, shall we.

I would suspect it necessary to use natural means to create creatures capable of freewill. All of the above are natures natural woes and can be accounted for with natural scientific explanations. All of the natural world appears to evolve around conflict and change. Without a conflict between human life and nature man would have no impetus to make choices that would be identified as “good” qua man. No pain, no gain.

Give us time, we’ll manage to extend our choices and possibilities soon enough. How would we know our limitations as they now exist without the freewill to determine them based on what works and what doesn’t due to ethical and moral considerations in relation to life and liberty in relation to science?

This brings to question, again, the nature of our history and progress as a species without these options? I’m mystified as to what natural law could be enacted to determine human behavior in relationships with family? We already have the law of life and death that has motivated man to form societies and laws to protect children. Why is it that these arguments always end up wanting a god to do what it is within man’s power to do? Are we just lazy, unimaginative…or just seeking justification for such evil as does exist now? If it’s all gods fault why not just sink into total depravity as a species and let anarchy reign? This line of reasoning also ignores the fact that the ratio of tortured children in relation to well treated ones is sufficient to allow us to comfort ourselves in the knowledge that, as a species, we are trying.

How much constraint is enough? At what point could we say, “o’kay, that’s enough. Let us do this, this and this but not that”. This all seems highly problematic to me. Who should decide such things and how would that effect our progress as a species? These arguments, IMO, always seem to focus on the immediate and never take into consideration that man is a historical creature with a past and, hopefully, a future. It’s almost like saying, “why don’t this god fix all our problems in this generation and to hell with what future generations may want or need.”





Freewill necessitates only that humans enjoy a range of choices. It doesn’t dictate those choices or say anything as to who makes what choice. This argument, at best, merely argues for a restriction on specific choices. Something cultures and governances already have established. Self governance and self regulation are themselves a direct result of freewill choice. This is an argument to restrict all freewill because some options are evil. I see governments taking this path today and find it quite troublesome.

If a moral species was designed to evolve, the very nature of evolution dictates that the design be such as to allow the speciation to arise according to predictable patterns. Patterns are far less specific than fine tuning, which this argument seems to favor. Why didn’t this god just poof us into existence as completely moral creatures with automatic knowledge of all things? Maybe the one thing god can’t do is duplicate himself. For to have performed the creative act in the way this argument suggests is to do just that.

This argument suggests that foreknowledge, divine or not, equates to determinism in its most ugly form. We all can exorcise some degree of foreknowledge yet we still have no control over the outcome. There are too many variables and no good reason to become a dictator. I can say with reasonable certainty that if I point a gun at someone and pull the trigger they are likely to be killed. So I refrain from doing this. But that doesn’t prevent them from being killed or dying eventually. This is another of those arguments that suffers from…well, shortsightedness. Man is, has been, and always will be an historical creature. It is one thing to know and quite another to influence or dictate. Christian doctrine is very explicit in demonstrating the various ways in which their god has influenced specific events and even dictated not a few but has, according to greater wisdom than we can muster, chosen to work from a very small group outward.




(7) If the desired freedom of action entails that suffering and premature death exist, then we can take the contrapositive and notice that a lack of suffering and premature death implies a lack of freedom of action. One example of such a situation is in Heaven, where there is no suffering and premature death. We may therefore conclude that the humans in Heaven are not free. [/b]

Although I’m not sure of the relevancy of this argument, since humans in heaven have squat to do with people on earth, I will say that it, too, suffers from a lack of research into what the Christian god has deemed to be his purpose for creating an historical creature in his image. Clearly if god resides in a place called heaven and has freewill there’s no good reason or argument against those who reside with him having this same privilege.

Surely you can do better than this my friend.

tw1tch

Rim,
Correction...we would be willing slaves if He DIDN'T give us freedom.


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

GunnerJ

No one's advocating the total loss of any freedom we may have, only the freedom to harm others, so stop flogging strawmen. Now, is there anything you'd like to say about the rest of my post, or do you just pick out the parts you (mistakenly) feel are easiest to counter? Edit: Would you feel better about answering the rest of my post if I used the term "willing groupies?" Here, I'll even repost my argument so you don't have look around for it:

"So, in the end, it comes down to god's selfish desire for willing groupies to stroke his ego. And yes, it is selfish, in that it is only considers his benefit, and disregards how adversely it effects others. It certainly isn't to my benefit that I have the capacity to reject all god beliefs and religion as unfounded, thus incuring eternal torment because of the off chance that one of them turns out to be right. Only your selfish, emotionally needy god benefits from such an arangement."

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by rainbow walking :


First, my position need only be that there would be less naturally-produced suffering than there is now, not that there be none of it, and as long as there's some, humans would have the "impetus" you mention. Second, humans could still make "good" or "evil" choices in response to human-produced problems; I could still choose to donate money to a homeless person even if his homelessness were only the result of other humans' actions.

Huh? I'm not sure you understood my objection completely. I don't see how knowledge requires free will, nor is it clear why God shouldn't institute natural laws to prevent us from performing some actions.

God has the power.

Because it's not within our power to prevent baby-torture. Certainly, if every human decided not to torture babies anymore, it might stop, but that's not going to happen.

Good question. You've provided another persuasive objection to theism. The atheist would say that it's not all God's fault, because God doesn't exist.

And a better ratio would help us to believe more strongly that we're trying. You're not really helping the theist's case here.

I don't know, but something more than this. That's all my argument requires.

Then God should allow us each a range of good choices. Again, you're not much helping the theist side.

Huh? In the very post to which you're responding, I argued that God should restrict evil choices, not choices in general.

That's not what I'm asking. God should just have increased the proportion of good people to evil people.

Nor is that what I'm asking. And even if I were, God would have the power.

It's not foreknowledge if it's not determined. Knowledge is a true belief (plus something else, on which epistemologists have not yet agreed), so if I know that X, it must be true that X.

How does this even begin to respond to my argument? I just gave you a good reason, that if free will requires evil and suffering, then there's no free will in Heaven.