Why do good things happen to bad people? And why does God allow bad things to happen to good people? These fundamental challenges to the existing of a benevolent, all powerful deity are often dismissed by theists with the often espoused, and always misguided “free will” argument. The salient point apparently being that even though the creator deity creates us inherently good, we have the choice to be bad.
Now I’m all for choice, but this doesn’t really feel like a free choice to me.
It’s clearly laid out for us, theists will tell you. You can subscribe to their particular brand of religion, which will result in a fantastic eternity of loveliness, or not, which will result in an eternity of torture. There’s no middle ground here, it’s bliss, or torture. The best possible thing, or the worst possible thing.
The rewards, or otherwise, are important when it comes to deciding whether or not one truly has free choice. If I put a gun to your head and said “sing Happy Birthday or I’ll shoot you”, would you consider that I gave you the free choice as to whether or not you sang Happy Birthday? What if I said “if you sing Happy Birthday I’ll give you a dollar”? Would that be free choice? What if I politely asked you to sing Happy Birthday?
In the hypothetical scenarios above we’re talking about a minor inconvenience (unless you particularly enjoy singing Happy Birthday) being put up against a range of incentives and disincentives, some of which are rather severe. However, neither the incentives nor the disincentives can be said to be anywhere near as severe as those that bind theists (is there anything as severe a disincentive as an eternity of torture?).
With such severe disincentives, it would be logical to assume that the actions which might trigger such disincentives are also severe. But this isn’t necessarily the case. Fundamentally, the differences between the major religions are fairly minor. Slavery, worshiping, suppression of any dissenting voices, oppression of women, genocide, torture – all aspects of the main religions. And while some have moved away from their roots in recent years, Christianity, Islam less so, one would have to question whether the deity that allegedly wrote the key works that guide these religions would be happy with the changes.
Essentially, you have to worship the right fairy and make sure you understand the minor matters of rule imposed by said fairy. So if you’re a Christian, make sure that when you beat your slave they can get up after a day or two. If you’re not a Christian, please see the applicable rule that applies to you. When you’re driving down the road of life, make sure you don’t break the particular speed limit that applies to you.
But I digress. The central question I’m positing is this. Given the severity of the incentives and disincentives, can you really consider yourself to have a free and open choice as to how to live your life? If a deity existed, the only way they could truly provide free choice would be to keep their existence hidden. Or as an absolute minimum, keep the incentives and disincentives hidden. Otherwise, when assessing a person’s validity for entry into “heaven”, it is not their morality that is being judged but rather their ability to suppress free choice and conform to rules. And if it is the suppression of free choice that’s being assessed, does free choice really exist as a viable option for anyone who believe in any deity whom imposes these rules?
The third choice is to embrace free choice, and choose to not believe. This completely nullifies the incentives and disincentives that affect theists, allowing for a more pure brand of free choice (one can argue whether or not free choice exists for anyone, determinists would argue not, but this is not the purpose of this article).
You are correct, sir. Free will is a myth, an illusion, a red herring and a rationalization for the religiously impaired to somehow justify the reality of their “gun to your head” religion. There is no real free will, i.e. I don’t have the free will to fly unaided or hold my breath for 20 minutes and dive 2000 ft. in the ocean. Even with the lame free will excuse, isn’t it a moot point to an supposedly omniscient god who knows in advance what choice you will make? If every believer would simply take apart their religious jigsaw puzzle and analyze every flawed piece, religion would cease to exist.
Apparently, everything is preordaned, for God forsaw everything, and thus made it how it was…. another counter argument for no free will.
But I think we do have a will, it’s just a matter of if we can express this will, don’t you think?
That being said, the religious expression of free will is irrational- In short, do anything you want as long as it’s for our team.
Every one has free will but there are consequences with free will.I could list them but it would be long God did not say life was easy life is a struggle.God might make it hard but man makes it a dam site harder. Man works hard building and a dam site harder destroying it.THIS planet is threatened by man not God.Man does a lot of bad things in the name of God but he is FREE to do that that is reel free will.
Peter, there are consequences for behavior when you break man’s laws, but there is absolutely no evidence of any consequences for any transgression against a religious law, if I do not subscribe to that religion. I have never sinned, how do you like those apples? Since I don’t subscribe to any religion, I am incapable of sinning. If you disagree, I’m going to demand that you trot out some evidence to support what you say. Simply saying that god exists or hell exists is not adequate. Quoting the Bible is non adequate either, since you are only parroting your beliefs. This is circular reasoning. Produce your evidence or withdraw.
I do not have the luxury of believe I only have knowledge of good and evil my free will was taken away from me for six months.The major countries have excepted psychics with abilities that are superior to ordinary people.I am a psychic the military have used psychics for 40 years to make a mind weapon.It was called remote viewing wikipedia have some info on it and there is more you only need to look.
Peter, I’m sorry but psychics are frauds. Contact James Randi and collect a cool one million dollars if you can show any evidence that you have psychic abilities.
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html
Also, what does a psychic have to do with the questions I posed?
So simple question then: If it is the free will of man that causes/allows the suffering in the world and God is not omnipotent or interventionist (or culpable) – then what is the point of prayer?
Think about it – if God cannot intervene in worldly affairs, to promote good or punish bad, then why spend any time at all requesting these very actions? All prayers must, by definition, be pointless.
If, on the other hand, prayers can be answered then we have an interventionist God. And if He is able to intervene on request – when the need is deemed great enough – then we have a God who, through inaction, allows disasters like Haiti to happen killing thousands of innocents. Yet at the same time devout sportsmen believe God helped them play well and win the ball game at the weekend.
Lifting the mood a little, the same God must also *choose* to allow humans to be gay. Don’t you think if he saw homosexuality as such a sin he would probably stop it – with him being omnipotent and all?
“Lifting the mood a little, the same God must also *choose* to allow humans to be gay. Don’t you think if he saw homosexuality as such a sin he would probably stop it – with him being omnipotent and all?”
One thing is that God has given us a free will, because if he forces things upon us, it would totally cancel out with his nature of love. He did not make humans be gay, but it is ourselves that chooses it. Like all other sins, we chose to do it. It was not God’s intention for us to sin.
However all the more God sees this sin as punnishable through death. He see’s all sin as serious, worthy of death.
But.. God chose not to do his punishment on us. Insted, he gave his ultimate sacrifice. Jesus so then we can be redeemed through him. So then we can be able to turn from our sins and be one with him again. Because Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, God’s most precious swapped with our bloodshed. God is omnipotent and he’s definitely won the war because of Jesus. But you can ask, why is there still sin in the world? It’s because our nature is sinful and this world is a broken world. However we are given the choice to be free, yet somehow.. We still ignore God.
There is a lot of confusion here as usual.
Atheist, “But I digress” should be your motto. Let’s just look at the “central question” and ignore the other nonsense, which seems to be about the existence or otherwise of free will.
Simply put, a being with intellectual ability is capable of pondering alternatives before reacting. In other words, they are capable of planning.
Free will is simply a consequence of this. Ultimately one of the options will seem most beneficial based on a person’s capacity and belief system [hence its importance]. In other words it is strongly linked to intelligence and not separate from it. It certainly does not mean (pace Shelby) being able to “fly unaided” or any such nonsense.
Morality fits in, precisely because some of us think that some of the options available are not worthy of a human being to make. [It also means that morality is not an issue with beings without intellect since the ability to choose between options also does not arise].
So the way the deity provides free choice, is by providing intelligence. Then when assessing a persons worthiness of heaven, it is precisely their free will that is assessed. It comes down to the question: how have they made their choices>. More on this point later…
Thus it should be clear that if you meant that the only really free choice is “to choose not to believe” is nonsense. It is the equivalent of saying “you are free to choose any of the options as long as you choose this one”.
When it comes to the question of God’s omniscience, Shelby expresses well the concept that “God knows in advance what choice you will make” – which is not the same as making you do it.
Jonathan, free will within the framework of Christian theology is not free will at all, it is just a transparent and blatant attempt at coercion. God sticks a gun to your head (threat of hell) and says “Give me your wallet” (believe in my Son) or I’ll blow your brains out (send you to hell). This is NOT free will. Genuine free will would include the option of being able to send the gunman away, keep your wallet and your life. If god knows your choice in advance, then the seat in heaven are finitely numbered and you just have a Calvinist approach to Christianity. Certainly, there are choices that are made in life and there are consequences for poor decisions.
From and old message on Usenet:
—
The doubter says:
“I could never follow Stalin. He puts people in the Gulag.”
That is what doubters tell themselves to rationalize their rejection of Stalin. But the truth is that Stalin does not send anyone to the Gulag. It is those who have hardened their hearts against him who send themselves to the Gulag through their bourgoise attitudes and counterrevolutionary actions.
This was not Stalin’s plan at all. He truly wants everyone to go to the Worker’s Paradise. And it grieves him that so many harden their hearts against him. But he will not force anyone into the Worker’s Paradise against their wishes, he respects their free will.
So if you don’t want to go to the Gulag, just open your heart to the love of Stalin. And stop resisting him.”
—
I am unclear whether you are denying the concept of free will completely, or its use in Christian theology.
I agree that coercion is unjust (and therefore not worthy of God – I am no Calvinist) though it still leaves the will free – in the Stalin example, the person is free, as you say, to choose between oppression and exile, even though these are not hugely wonderful choices.
Nor is foreknowledge the same thing as ‘prebooking’. I might know (though not definitively obviously) that my 4-year-old will not put his pyjamas on when I tell him to, because I know him. That is not at all the same as making him not put them on.
The key difficulty with your Stalin example is the bit that reads: “Stalin does not send anyone to the Gulag” – which of course, he does. This is not precisely analogical to going to hell. Heaven is life with God, and Hell is life without him. Pure and simple. The sufferings of Hell arise because we are made to live with God, and therefore can not be totally fulfilled without him.
Theologians say that if anyone in Hell wanted to go to Heaven, they instantly would. The key element here is rejection of God, which is a free choice. I would rather suggest another analogy for your consideration:
—
The doubter says:
“I could never live in King Cole’s palace. He has too many rules. Also, he’s always having parties – it’s just a big bribe. Another thing, he’s always at the centre – what a self-important prig!â€
That is what doubters tell themselves to rationalize their rejection of the King. But the truth is that the rules are just for the wellbeing of everyone, and come naturally once you’re there. The parties are truly splendid and everyone loves the fiddlers three. And the King is such a merry old soul, it would not be the same without him at all! After all, it is his palace and everything there is his gift!
And it grieves him that so many harden their hearts against him. But he will not force anyone into the castle against their wishes, he respects their free will. You can stay outside if that’s what you decide.
So if you want to go to the palace, just open your heart to the love of the King. And stop resisting him.â€
Jonathan, you have just invoked Hector’s Principle by debunking yourself. The Stalin example is relevant and why is god worthy of your special pleading? Of course Stalin sends people to the Gulag just like god sends people to hell, that was the entire point of the analogy. John 3:18 states clearly to believe or else. Also, Isaiah 45:7 states clearly that god created hell. God created it and god populates it. To abdicate god’s ability to send or not send people to hell makes your god not a god. If god wanted to do it right, he could have created humans with free will and the capability to not sin. After all, god is the template for this personality trait is he not?
Shelby, I’m sorry I am unfamiliar with Hector’s Principle, so you’ll have to explain why you think I have “debunked” myself.
I also don’t know what special pleading are you referring to…
The Stalin example is not accurate and in fact I invite you to read the whole of chapter 3 to show how my analogy is more accurate. Jesus offers a “new birth” in the Spirit as a gift that can be accepted or refused. To put it simply, this gift is what enables you to live in heaven (ie with God). You are right that each person ought to have the chance to make and recognise this choice for it to be fair.
Exactly how God evaluates an individual’s conscience is something we have no access to. In fact, we do not know for certain that anyone is in hell. Some theologians (for which I have some sympathy) think that we can hope that all are saved.
Still we do know for certain that if anyone on judgement day refuses heaven, that option is available. God does not force us to live forever with him. I would have thought that an atheist would find that a good thing. If it were up to me, I would condemn everyone to heaven.
Thus, as you point out, God is the ultimate judge, but this is not arbitrary, much less malicious, hence my dislike for the Stalin analogy….
I am unsure also what you mean by “template”, but it is clear that God can’t create both free will and complete immunity from sin. That is the same as saying: “You have a wide array of choices, but don’t worry, I’ll always make sure you choose the one I want you to make…”. That is both the tragedy and the dignity of man: there is choice, therefore real involvement in your destiny. But it also means that you might make wrong choices along the way… Fortunately, God is a just judge. You need not fear of being “sent” to Hell against your will. In some ways judgement can be thought of as an illumination of God as he really is, and each soul will know if he/she is attracted or repelled…
Once again, Hell is the eternal absence of God. Clearly some people want that…
It’s being made into a badge as I type this.
I’m interested in your take on this: Yes, intelligence gives us the ability to predict future events and take appropriate action (based on a number of incentives or disincentives). In a theist’s view of the world, God has imbued us with this intelligence. He made us so that we can assess the possibilities and choose a path based on the greatest benefit (the most powerful incentive) or the greatest pitfall (the most powerful disincentive). It was God who designed our intelligence to include this function.
That very same God, knowing that he has given us this function, decides to reveal to us the greatest incentives and disincentives (in the form of heaven and hell) possibly conceivable. These incentives and disincentives do not require any prediction from us, it is quite clearly stated that “if you do these things, this will be the result”. There is no room for manoeuvre, no room for doubt.
So given than our intelligence is designed by, and fully understood by, a creator God, said creator God would surely know which variables would result in which outcomes (i.e. if an intelligence is presented with this situation, and this information, God will know the actions taken by the entity in charge of that intelligence). It is God providing the intelligence, God providing the variables that are to be taken into account. So is there really free will?
Following on from this, and returning to a question I asked in the article, did God remove any semblance of free choice that may have existed by revealing not only his own existence, but the potential incentives and disincentives, seeing as he already knew how every intelligence would react to that information.
Obviously, as an atheist I would argue that those who are not bound by arbitrary moral codes, and are free to form their own, are the only ones who have free choice in any sense of the word.
“If an intelligence is presented with this situation, and this information, God will know the actions taken by the entity in charge of the intelligence.”
No. This is where free will and personal identity (and human dignity) become important. No “intelligence” is an abstract “entity”, but an individual creation. We are not mere formulas who take certain inputs and spit out the corresponding output. That would be to negate free will, as you realise.
Free will is the ability to personally decide on one of the options. There are many ‘variables’ that strongly influence our choices (our backgrounds, our education, our culture, our beliefs, even our physical condition [such as sickness or mood or, depending on the situation, even our height or the colour of our hair could have an influence on a particular decision]). Despite all of this, the choice is not “given”. We can agonize over one or other option, and generally the more important the decision, the harder it is to make the choice. Ultimately, the “interior debate” (to put it this way) is personal and the choice that is made is non transferable. That is, no one else can make it for you (though, of course, you can be influenced to a greater or lesser degree. This forms part of the deliberative process). Even when someone holds a gun to my head, I am not totally without choice, and indeed there are times when it may be nobler to let them pull the trigger.
We can see how this works sometimes, when we start to change our mind, or realise that we made a mistake, or seek another’s advice. Sometimes we can rectify wrong decisions, but other times we can’t.
It is also true that our decisions about ethical matters begin to become part of us. Making wrong moral decisions gets easier with practise, and vice-versa (eg the first murder is always the hardest).
—
On the question of morality, you claim that you are “free” to form your own moral code. Exactly! This is the same as admitting the existence of free will. You totally get to decide how to act, or how you think you ought to act in any situation. The next question is, though, how do you know that your moral code is the right one? or else why couldn’t it just be totally arbitrary. As we have already agreed (I think): freedom is ultimately based on intelligence.
Let us say on some moral issue, that you think one option is best, and I think another is best. It is entirely possible, that one of us is a better thinker. If that were not the case, moral discussion would be pointless. But, in fact, it is highly beneficial. It gives us both the possibility of understanding the options better and making more informed choices for when we do make our (free) decisions.
As to who is more free? I argue that the person who habitually makes the right moral decisions is paradoxically the most free (and in this I am in accord with some of the greatest pre-Christian philosophers). This is because, although I could choose something morally wrong, in fact I am being somewhat unreasonable in doing so – therefore I am ruining my practical intelligence to a degree: I am actually being a bit stupid, and make myself less able to judge well. There is a lot more to this, as you might imagine… read Plato or Aristotle for the tip of the iceberg…
—
This leads me to one last point. Christianity is not a morality, as you sometimes seem to infer. It is about a relationship. As with all voluntary relationships, it depends on the goodwill of both parties. Once again I urge my King Cole model over the Stalin model (see my debate above with Shelby Sherman). The heaven/hell question is not a “do this or else” alternative, but rather the response to an invitation of love which is freely entered into, or rejected.
As always, your response is well considered Jonathan. However, I do believe your judgement is somewhat clouded on this matter. Regardless of whether
…and…
I’m interested in the slight contradiction between these two quotes. To me, intelligence is exactly an abstract entity. It is a function that takes in information, and outputs information. This may be an unromantic way of looking at things, but I don’t believe it to be correct. I’m sure that in years to come we will reach a stage in technological advancement where we can model intelligence and predict outcomes based on that model. Any attempt to predict behaviour using such models at the moment find it difficult to take into account personal variations in personality etc, but this is a failure of the models themselves, not the general concept. Yes, there’s a seemingly insurmountable number of variables to take into account, but the complexity of models we currently use everyday (especially in the fields of economics, retail, criminology and intelligence, climatology and biology) would have seemed equally unachievable barely 50 years ago.
But that’s a separate matter (I digress?). With regards to free choice and those who believe in an all knowing, all powerful God, I see two issues.
Would you not consider that out of all the variables you’ve listed in your comment, God has control over all of them? If not, what exactly does God do?
The other issue comes down to God’s presumable omniscience. He knows everything that has happened, everything that will happen and the consequences of all his actions. The point being that if God wanted you to do something, he could get you to do it. This may be through overt means (for example sending an angel down from heaven to communicate with you) or more subtle means (he gave your great great great grandmother ginger hair, which lead to you having ginger hair, which lead to you joining a club for ginger haired people, where you met Bob, who… etc etc.). And because God is omniscience, he knows which of the two approaches would work better on you, on order to achieve his goals.
If that’s a bit of a stretch (I don’t see why, many religious friends often react to events in their lives with an “it’s in God’s plans” response), the converse is also true. Rather than planning out every minute and major event in order to achieve his agendas, he would also have known the impact of his inaction. So from the very point God created Adam and Eve and imbued them with intelligence, and provided them with a world to live in (i.e. all the variables and the function with which to process them) he knew exactly how you are going to behave tomorrow. And if you don’t buy into the Adam and Eve story, and I would imagine you don’t, the same applies to God’s triggering, or not, of the Big Bang. Inaction is as powerful as action when you’re omniscient.
The ultimate question is not whether we have free choice or not. It is whether theists who believe an such a God (and that would be most of the major religions) undersand that it’s entirely possible that their God has already chosen which choices they will make. Whether they (or you) believe any of the major Gods would act in this way is entirely irrelevant at this point. Not to mention that the great influencer, put out the greatest incentive and disincentive system ever devised knowing full well how every intelligent entity in earth would respond to it.
It’s been a while since I have checked out this site… time for a new post, I think, Atheist… or have you converted (hahaha)?
What does God do?
For me this is the most interesting question you have raised! An infinite intelligence, for whom knowledge of everything in the universe and everything that ever happened or will happen is still finite and therefore practically nothing compared to his omniscience…. what does he do?
This is a fascinating question, and I suspect it is closely related free will (or practical intelligence). In fact the primary act of will is not to act (God actually just does that by thinking: “Let there be light” is it itself sufficient for there to be light) but to love. I know we disagree on what love is, but I propose that we could say that love is, at least partly, desire of something that we think is good for us. Note the inclusion of the word “think” – there is an intellectual aspect to love, it is not purely emotional as I have attempted to argue elsewhere. God’s fundamental ‘act’ is to love. (We also know this from the Bible).
Anyway, I am also capable as you see, of digressing!
—
To answer very briefly your other interesting and well expressed points:
First: I am glad you recognise that your expectation of science to be able to explain every aspect of your intelligence fully is an act of faith (you say “believe”) rather than something you can prove.
For myself, I don’t think that it is just a matter of being able to take all the ‘inputs’ and being able to predict the ‘output’. This is to view the intellect as a kind of calculating machine which totals up the pros and cons and announces the winner. I do not think that this is what we actually experience when we consider our options when the decision to be made is a moral one. I think that our conscience (yes, I know, needs explaining, but you know what I’m talking about) strives to tell us what we ought to do, and we (the whole person not just our mind or brain, or emotions) decide what to do (or sometimes just ‘give up’ under the strain.
Nor do I think that God has control over all the ‘variables’. At least not directly, especially if others also have truly free choices. I actually think the really difficult thing is to explain how God guides and cares for us and yet leaves us free than to explain how it is that God doesn’t control every aspect of our lives.
Still, the point you make, that if God really positively wanted you to do something he could make you do it. Yes. But he would have to take away your freedom to do it. This is complicated, but theologians discuss the distinction between God’s active and permissive will. It is also comes some way to seeing around the problem of evil (raised below by Kyle), as you can probably work out.
Don’t you just love God.
No, I don’t. I loathe the god concept as he is portrayed as a bi-polar, petty, vicious, unstable, violent liar and the greatest mass murderer in all of history. Read R. Crumb’s Illustrated Guide to Genesis (Rated X) where he takes the words of the Bible verbatim. His illustrations, especially the expressions of the faces of the humans, are priceless as they display disbelief and shock at the way god is sticking it too them.
Love god? Give me one reason to love that bloody lunatic, just one that does not involve a threat. How about it?
He created you.
Prove it… Apply even the smallest amount of logic to any portion of any religion and it just doesn’t add up or seem viable. We have no idea where we came from or how we got here. However the story of religion makes some feel comforted and gives people hope that there is more out there than this life. So of out weakness or an inability to face the truth, we succumb to the idiocy of religion.
Religion has killed more people than the Nazis or any known situation the planet has ever endured and as the discussion explains with any god, particularly Christian gods… Gun against my head religion, isn’t free will. Follow me or die… Just naïve.
God made me a offer I could not refuse.
People, who created the god concept make me an offer that I must refuse. No thanks, I’m no slave to fear and can deal with my own mortality without inventing gods, heavens and hells.
You do not know the offer It opened a fantastic door It as proved that there is more to death and life what can you offer man.
Proved? Where is your evidence, man? There are tens of thousands of cemeteries full of millions of dead people that have stayed quite dead. Simply stating your religious belief is not evidence. What is the basis of your claim outside of your belief. Please don’t say the Bible, that is simply a reflection of your belief. Personal anecdotes are not evidence either. Do you have any? Any at all?
This from a guy who is 60+ years old, has slept with witches, is a self professed “Seer” and Psychic. Has publicly proclaimed “All humans are psychic if you have a gift use it carefully never tell anyone learn to live with it in harmony.†My good sir, you are a fraud even in your own words.
What a surprise that the argument of “Free Will” should emerge in this discussion.
This is a fallacious point because it misinterprets some key items in the bible. First off, God created us with free will to choose whether or not to worship him. Yet to not worship him is a sin, and the consequence of sin is death. Or dismemberment. Or the suffering of your family members, etc. That’s not free will.
Secondly, presumably when we die and go to heaven, we’ll retain our free will once there, will we not? If that’s the case, how can we have free will in heaven but no suffering, but that same free will on earth leads to misery? There’s a fundamental contradiction here.
Thirdly, free will doesn’t account for suffering caused by natural sources — earthquakes, hurricanes, plagues, floods, etc. Haiti is one of the poorest, and most religious, countries on earth yet God did not hear the prayers of the Haitians when it came to the Jan. 12 earthquake, which has now killed 200,000 people and caused immeasurable suffering among millions of others. The same is true for Hurricane Katrina — New Orleans is and remains a venerable, religious city and yet God devastated that city with a hurricane.
And let’s not forget: in what is probably the most religious period in human history, the Middle Ages, there was The Black Death, which killed one-third of the world’s population. Ditto for the Holocaust. How was the suffering caused here an example of “free will”?
You could argue that suffering is caused because we’re disobeying God, but why in this case is it that the “wicked” are so often grouped in with the righteous. I’ll cite the examples of Haiti, New Orleans and the Middle Ages again as proof of this — all religious cities and/or time periods where “good” supposedly-godly people suffered and died because… why? Therefore the punishment idea for suffering holds little or no weight since so many innocent and good people are harmed, too — unless you want to argue they are “collateral damage.” Or that God is, indeed, evil. I don’t propose to advocate either argument.
Here, it is appropriate to quote Epicurus who, I feel, answered the key question of suffering almost 3,000 years ago.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
There are forces at work polling shoving you know if I had the answer I would tell you all I ask is you keep a open mind dont rule anything out.Don’t be blinded by science or by the past some thin is hiding in all this confusion and I have a feeling it isn’t very nice.
Blinded by science? Science observes and then explains. Religion does just the opposite, it starts with rigid conclusions then sniffs around, quote mining and erecting straw men and casting red herrings. Religion shoots an arrow into the wall, then paints a bull’s eye around it. Blinded by science? Science does not factor in the supernatural the same reason it does not factor in Pixie Dust for explanations to natural phenomena. Simply put, there is no evidence of either, so shelve your science red herring, science is just after the truth, regardless of the source. Science is blind to preset agendas, not blinding to those who seek the truth.
Science uses paranormal and except it It has been try to control it and it can but it is limited and it is still on going.Through universities it takes a mans free will and can make him do what ever he is told to do.I am a psychic I know exactly what it can do occult uses it.RIMOTE VIEWING.
I could go to my public library and dig some good examples of christianity but I used my experiences.You all have a mind but throw something that somebody else quotes.Then show hostility at my comments I thought because you were intelligent that you would listen consider my comment.But I am called a liar alki druggy thief.I am not sure what this web site wants Real debates or some other sinister reason if my intelligence is at questions then do a IQ test on all visitors.Some visitors have been upset all they ask is debate not on this site but linked site.I am all for debates I am not going away.
Peter, I don’t think I’m the only one wondering how much you really want to engage in “debate” on this site (or on mine). I don’t see where anyone’s been particularly hostile with you here. They’ve mostly been asking you to clarify what it is you’re trying to say.
I’m totally confused by your assertion that you’re being called “a liar alki druggy thief”. I can’t see anyone here using any one of those terms to refer to you. Things like that make me wonder how much attention you’re actually paying to what everyone else is saying.
The thing that I think bugs me most about the “free will” explanation of why suffering exists in the world is that it’s apparently meant to be taken as read that it’s a worthwhile trade-off.
We have to put up with violence, human injustice, rape, murder, abuse, every terrible thing that every person has ever done to another person (and natural disasters and so on presumably thrown into the deal as well – how does that work?), but it’s okay because in return we’re granted that wonderful precious gift of… free will.
And that’s supposed to make up for it? A reasonable and loving God decided that this was a better way of doing things? Call me crazy, but I’m not so attached to my free will that I wouldn’t happily give it up if it meant getting rid of, y’know, the entirety of human suffering.
I guess there is an important distinction to be made, between lacking a free choice due to purely deterministic reasons, and to lacking such a choice because of threats made against you if you choose the wrong thing. But whatever way you look at it, God doesn’t come off well.
What makes someone a hero? Is it the way they are raised? Is it their experiences in life? Is their set of beliefs? You might be asking yourself how these questions have anything to do with freedom of choice in religion.
Wouldn’t you call a man who saves a little girl from being burnt in a fire hero? However, that would be illogical to survival unless you argued he had no choice; you would be ignoring the fact that some homo-sapiens harm others intentionally if you say there is no choice.
However, your argument doesn’t address there are some Christians theist that point out, hell is a separation from god instead of eternal torture, which is supported by the bible. Though it should be noted there are some theists who advocate eternal torture is destined for those who don’t believe in god.
Does the presence of rewards or punishments eliminate freedom? If the answer is yes then if God rewards or punishes our behavior and makes those reward or punishments known to us he has effectively eliminated free will. If incentives to behavior are compatible with free will then God can reward or punish without violating human freedom. Imagine that I invited you over for dinner, and wanting to be a good host, I offer more than one choice of drinks. So I pour two identical glasses of water and ask you to choose. You respond that this is not a real choice. Why not? Simply because which glass you choose makes no difference. If I am to offer you a real choice than I must offer different drinks. In the same way, if our actions do not attend different results, then it is difficult to see how there could be real choice. If there is a difference in the results of our actions, that difference must be more than cosmetic if our choices are significant. In other words some of our choices must have good results, and others bad ones. If this is not the case we are left in the monotonous safety of meaningless choice. If our choices have results that have varying degrees of good or bad consequences then to what logical limit would we establish as being too much? The greater the consequences the more significant the choice. Therefore the greater the consequences of our choices, the more real is the freedom of that choice.
Few people would be satisfied with merely having arbitrary freedom. If God were like Stalin, then he would establish evil choices to have good consequences. But God is good. Only evil beings reward evil with good. Good actions must be rewarded and evil ones punished or justice has not been done. This, of course, presents a problem, since in our world we see plenty of examples of injustice. Slavery, suppression of dissenting voices, oppression of women, genocide, and torture are unfortunately illustrated in innumerable ways. To make things worse, very often those who do these things not only are not punished, but are rewarded and prosper. In such a world how are Christians able to affirm a God who is just, who gives everyone what they deserve?
Imagine watching a race with three contestants. They all line up, the starting gun sounds, and they are off. After an hour of hard running, the racers become separated by a considerable distance. There is no debate about who is winning. Suppose that you stop watching the race, and the next day are told that the judges declared that the last man won, the second man came in second, and the one who was first lost. You are upset, because the proper order was reversed, and the best man did not win, so you write an angry letter to the athletics board about the judges’ discrimination. You receive a courteous, but short reply: “If you had seen the end of the marathon, you would have known that the order was correct. The one you saw in last place eventually outran the others, while the one who was in first suffered an injury and dropped out.”
In the same way, our lives are the middle of the race. God is not right now judging the world, so we should not expect the world to look like he is. According to Christianity, there is coming a day when God will judge the world in perfect goodness, and at that time everyone, yourselves included, will see that God is just. Until then, those like myself who make no claim to perfection are glad that God is not judging the world. This gives us time turn to him for a solution to our own wrongs before we must answer for them. You could argue that you do not believe that God exists, and so do not have to worry about it. Ponder the cost of your choice if you are wrong. If it is true that saying that there is a God does not make him exist, then it is also true that saying that there is not a God does not cause him to cease existing. If you are right in being an atheist then I will only lose a little happiness, but I would not wish to be in your shoes if you are wrong.
God has judged me, and has made me a christian soldier.Each day is different ,he as shown me the power of praying the bible.I have ventured into inerspace,I have looked in the eyes of the prince of darkness.Free will is not a myth ,LOVE is beautiful how you use it is up to you.
God has judged you, and maked you a christian soldier. I’m sure that’s what terrorists say… that isn’t sufficient justification.
Also, does that not mean your ‘free will’ is ‘restricted will’, and therefore
1) free will does not exist, or
2) God didn’t make you a soldier, but you did?
FREE will,means different things to different people.What if a Deity told you not to comment on a topic,if you did it would attack your family.and you challenge this Deity,and he attacks your family say up to five members.Two he kills, we no this cant happen it is impossible. Would you have your free will interfered with, how would you send messages on a topic so as to keep your family safe.Or would you loose this little bit of free will.Or would you hope some one is good with puzzles specially life and death puzzles.I still love god and find strength.Evil will always attack me,all I ask as long as people dont beleived me my family is safe.
For a religious guy, you kind of fail. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t God the entity of good? Therefore, how can God kill a third party when he fights someone else?
Not only that, but how is God so petty, that he does indeed kill and attack families. An example is when he ‘tests’ the faith of his believer, by asking him to sacrifice his child. That child would probably have a lot of issues…
Also, you talk about losing a bit of free will. Does that not make your will free? It would therefore be ‘restricted will’, thus making your free will argument false.
I personally LOVED this part. “I ask as long as people dont beleived me my family is safe.”
Wow, so God doesn’t kill your family, as long as you don’t say what you really think, feel or believe. Can anyone else sum up religion so well?
.. it’s sad reading those comments 🙁 but for me, God is a good God, He loves me even if I turned him back so many times, He knows what things willl make me happy , and He’s the father of all, king of kings.. He loves us.. even if we don’t love Him back.. God is a loving father, you wont understand unless you feel it .. but God has plans for all of you .. and someday, you’ll understand, and when that time comes, you will all be happy..
It seems as though you are defending the claim that we will all someday understand God, and when that happens, we will all be happy.
You are supporting your claim in part by stating that we won’t understand how loving a father God is unless we feel it. This seems like a rather fragile statement because it leaves so many questions unanswered, such as when will these feeling be felt? What can people do to feel this love?
Also, what about the people who choose to never attempt to understand God? Does this mean that those people will be eternally unhappy if they choose to not understand God and his mysterious plans? Many people who chose not to worship Him could be considered happy.
It can also be argued that God’s power and plans can never be fully understood by any mortal, even by someone who life is devoted to being faithful to Him.
I personally think that there is such thing as free will. You used the example of putting a gun to someone’s head and telling them to sing Happy Birthday. But the thing is, they still have a free choice on that matter. They simply can chose to sing or not sing, but it’s they’re choice. And just to bring up a point, Cassie Bernall had a similar thing happen to her. People, pointing a gun at her head, asked whether or not she was a Christian. She said yes and was immediately killed. But I believe she had free choice. She could have lied and lived, but she didn’t. That is free choice.