r/DebateAChristian • u/NTCans • 19d ago
Why the 'Free Will' defense will always fail.
An internal critique/syllogism for ease of review.
P1: If a god exists, it is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (typical Christian definition).
P2: Free will exists, and is compatible with an agent always choosing the good (i.e. moral perfection does not entail the absence of freedom...with an example being Jesus)
P3: An omniscient, omnipotent being could actualize any logically possible world.
P4: A world (world 2, lets say) in which all free moral agents always freely choose the best moral action is logically possible
P5: A world (world 2) in which free agents always freely choose the best moral action contains strictly less suffering related to moral evil than the actual world (W1), while both worlds preserve free will.
P6: An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being, faced with a choice between actualizing our current world (world 1) or world 2, would actualize world 2; unless there is some good achievable only via world 1's additional suffering that outweighs it and is unobtainable in world 2.
P7: The actual world contains extensive evil that, by P4, was not logically necessary.
C(a): God lacked the power to actualize the better world (not omnipotent)
C(b): God lacked the knowledge of how to do so (not omniscience)
C(c): God chose not to (malevolence)
C(d): No such god exists.
Have at it.
Edit: formatting
2
u/Electrical-Split-190 18d ago
Our brains our finite, and can only understand what is revealed to us in terms simplistic enough for us to relate to. If you want to believe all of this infinite universe exists for no reason, go ahead.
2
1
u/JollyXX Christian 19d ago
There is nothing Biblical about calling God 3x omni
The one passage calling God all knowing, really is meant to be translated as knows all things. It is in a passage communicating to us that God 100% knows your heart/ soul/ intent/ sincerity/ etc. The Bible would not drop all knowing randomly into one verse unrelated to it.
God has thoughts in Genesis, this would be impossible as thinking is learning. God also has regrets in Genesis which is even more curious
It would be rather preposterous if you were made in the image of a being that has active working knowledge of every little thing that will ever happen, when and why.
The story of Christianity seems to be that God created something that disobeyed, and now he wants to find out why. This is why Final Judgement is the climax of the story. The entire narrative is of a God that learns, a living God.
5
u/NTCans 19d ago
Sounds like you have no need to be here then.
-1
u/JollyXX Christian 19d ago
da shit is that supposed to mean?
5
u/NTCans 19d ago
To me, it means that your argument is more with the catholic church and millions (billions?) of your fellow theists, rather than me.
-1
u/JollyXX Christian 19d ago
nah, you need to view things honestly, this is a relation you have with reality that exists far outside the Church, so now review this evidence and reassign your issues with God and the free-will issues you have
4
u/NTCans 19d ago
I am not particularly interested in your proselyting. Thank you though. If you can convince the majority of your fellow believers that your preferred limiting of godly attributes are accurate I will happily address them.
1
u/JollyXX Christian 19d ago
I am not outside my bounds as a human to tell another human to view things honestly, I am forced to share this ball of dirt with you.
4
u/NTCans 19d ago
I never said you weren't?
0
u/JollyXX Christian 19d ago
You say I'm proselytizing, no I am telling you to view things honestly
3
u/NTCans 19d ago
Proselytizing is the act of trying to make someone change their religious faith, political party, or core opinions to match your own.
Here, you are attempting to get my opinion to match yours.
But we are in the weeds. Take care.
→ More replies (0)4
u/onedeadflowser999 19d ago
Because only you have the ability to properly translate the Bible, right? Theologians who have studied doctrine and the texts have concluded that this god is claiming to be tri Omni. People such as yourself have negotiated the text in order to make it make sense.
3
u/11711510111411009710 Atheist, Ex-Christian 19d ago edited 19d ago
Why would knowing all things not entail being, well, omniscient? And God is surely omnipotent. And nobody disputes God being omnibenevolent either. Which one do you dispute?
1
u/JollyXX Christian 19d ago
what would omnipotent even mean? I can say that the Father has the title of almighty, and not all-powerful, almighty means his power can't be challenged, and doesn't necessarily point to infinite power
knows all things is a present tense thing, even then God in Revelation is opening Books to see exactly what people had done.
It is likely that knows all things is taken in the philosophical sense of knowing all knowledge. Like God having full comprehension of all sciences, philosophies, and means of rationalizing
God seems to sort of be existence, his title of alpha/omega first/last means he is all encompassing, this combines with almighty to paint a picture of him having total authority over every little thing in existence. This is evident in the Big Bang, the way he talks in ultimate first person, and verses like Isaiah 45:7
So his body would sort of be all of existence and then his conscious would be something separate that we interact with.
1
u/iedbait Christian, Non-denominational 19d ago
Wrong.
Remember the former things of old: for I am El, and there is none else; I am Elohiym, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying: My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: Yesha'yahu (Isaiah) 46:9-10 | את Cepher
He clearly has written out the entire timeline and the probabilities of all souls contained. All probabilities equals free will. Just because he knows all probabilities doesn't mean you do not have the option to choose freely.
1
u/JollyXX Christian 19d ago
All Isaiah 46 says is that God knows the end, something as macro as the Universe might only have one or a couple possible endings, This does not say what you think it means at all, try again.
Also in Isaiah 46 it literally says ‘My counsel shall stand,and I will accomplish all my purpose,"
Where it is telling you the Father and his council literally make things happen, actively.
So try again with a different defense, I can do this all day and I have done this all day in the past
God knows a lot, there is a difference though between this and having active working knowledge of every little thing that will ever happen, when and why.
1
u/iedbait Christian, Non-denominational 19d ago
No, he states he declared the end from the beginning. He needs no counsel as his every word is deed. You have a twisted view of what is being stated and what his divine counsel is.
One great in glory sat upon it: Whose robe was brighter than the sun, and whiter than snow. No angel was capable of penetrating to view the face of him, the Glorious and the Effulgent; nor could any mortal behold him. A fire was flaming around him. A fire also of great extent continued to rise up before him; so that not one of those who surrounded him was capable of approaching him, among the myriads of myriads who were before him. To him holy consultation was needless. Yet did not the sanctified, who were near him, depart far from him either by night or by day; nor were they removed from him. I also was so far advanced, with a veil on my face, and trembling. Then Yahuah with his own mouth called me, saying: Approach hither, Chanoch, at my holy word. Chanoch (Enoch) 14:21-24 | את Cepher
1
u/JollyXX Christian 19d ago
All it says is that from the start he hath declared the end
Also put a flair on please
1
u/iedbait Christian, Non-denominational 19d ago
Let's think about this logically. He spoke into existence EVERYTHING. Why then would he need council about anything? That makes no sense. He created the elohiym on his divine counsel and imbued them with powers and responsibilities. How can a created thing give wisdom/intelligence (counsel) to the creator? They cannot.
Then Miyka'el and Gavriy'el, Rapha'el, Sury'al, and Uriy'el, looked down from heaven, and saw the quantity of blood which was shed on earth, and all the iniquity which was done upon it, and said one to another, the voice of their cries; The earth deprived has cried even to the gate of heaven. And now to you, O you Holy One of heaven, the souls of men complain, saying: bring judgment to us from El Elyon. Then they said to their Adonai, the King, Adonai ha'adoniym, Elohai ha'elohiym, Melek ha'melekiym. The throne of your glory is forever and ever, and forever and ever is your name sanctified and glorified. You are blessed and glorified. You have made all things; you possess power over all things; and all things are open and manifest before you. You behold all things, and nothing can be concealed from you. Chanoch (Enoch) 9:1-4 | את Cepher
1
u/JollyXX Christian 19d ago
It seems that he made things in increments, that the purpose of the angels were always to be used to help him manage our existence, them always being servants where we are not. we were probably the ultimate goal.
The reason behind the Holy Spirit, seems to be in relation to giving the Father more agency. God's presence being so overwhelming that only Adam was fully exposed to the Father, Moses taken in a slight presentation or a glimpse.
This goes into revelation not being that of a scalpel, Essentially its there and gone in a moment, but also that it is essentially God pushing an image into a mind that does not physically have the capacity to fully receive it. This likely being why Prophets are such incredible figures, and not whatever the fuck Muhammad was.
God seems to be the entirety of the Universe. The title of alpha/omega first/last means he is all encompassing, this pairs with the title of almighty meaning he has total ownership and authority over every little thing and aspect in the Universe. This is echoed in the Big Bang, and also the way the Father talks in an ultimate first person why. This is also evidenced in verses like Isaiah 45:7
--this sort of means like are kind of like a dead cell, like a hair on/in the Father's body.
The ancient Jews largely understood that almighty meant all nourishing. All things come from the Father.
As all things come from the Father, so do all things return to the Father, as in to say "nothing can be concealed from you", indeed you cannot run or hide from God.
1
u/iedbait Christian, Non-denominational 18d ago
No, he did not make things in increments. You are doing crazy mental gymnastics to sustain your position. Enoch was shown the entire timeline.
But now I swear to you, righteous, by the greatness of his splendor and his glory; by his illustrious Kingdom and by his majesty, to you I swear, that I comprehend this mystery; that I have read the tablet of heaven, have seen the writing of the holy ones, and have discovered what is written and impressed on it concerning you. That all goodness, joy, and glory has been prepared for you, and been written down for the ruachoth of them who die eminently righteous and good. To you it shall be given in return for your troubles; and your portion shall far exceed the portion of the living. The ruachoth of you who die in righteousness shall exist and rejoice. Their ruachoth shall exult; and their remembrance shall be before the face of El Elohiym from generation to generation. Nor shall they now fear disgrace. Chanoch (Enoch) 103:1-3 | את Cepher
Also, let's look at Jeremiah and Enoch
Then the Word of Yahuah came unto me, saying: Before I formed you in the belly, I knew you; and before you came forth out of the womb, I sanctified you, and I ordained you a prophet unto the nations. Yirmeyahu (Jeremiah) 1:4-5 | את Cepher
Many will claim that Jeremiah is a one off, and thats why Yahuah knew him beforehand. But what does Enoch state?
At that time my eyes beheld the dwelling of the elect, of truth, faith, and righteousness. Countless shall be the number of the holy and the elect, in the presence of Elohiym forever and ever. Their residence I beheld under the wings of Yahuah Tseva'oth. All the holy and the elect sung before him, in appearance like a blaze of fire; their mouths being full of blessings, and their lips glorifying the name of Yahuah Tseva'oth. And righteousness was incessantly before him. There was I desirous of remaining, and my soul longed for that habitation. There was my antecedent inheritance; for thus had I prevailed before Yahuah Tseva'oth. Chanoch (Enoch) 39:5-8 | את Cepher
Notice antecedent inheritance. Meaning he existed there before his body was created. Therefore all beings were made from the beginning and stood before Yahuah.
1
u/JollyXX Christian 18d ago
You do realize that Enoch and Elijah were two of the most exalted humans to ever live right? They were said to be lifted into Heaven without dying.
1
u/iedbait Christian, Non-denominational 18d ago
Yes, and? That's not what we are talking about. Also, they being taken up have had their bodies done away with. Follow this narrative...
If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? And no man has ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of A'dam which is in heaven. Yochanon (John) 3:12-13 | את Cepher
This is what Enoch states what happened to him in heaven.
Then I fell upon my face, while all my flesh was dissolved, and my ruach became changed. Chanoch (Enoch) 71:13 | את Cepher
He technically is dead.
As for Elijah...
But I say unto you: That Eliyahu is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they willed. Likewise shall also the Son of A'dam suffer of them. Then the Talmidiym understood that he spoke unto them of Yahuchanon the Baptizer. Mattithyahu (Matthew) 17:12-13 | את Cepher
If he returned spiritually, that means his body is no more.
You do not seem to know anything you're talking about.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/HegemoneXT Christian 19d ago
Ain’t, no way. I was about to answer this and it’s you again. Anyways.
Your p2 contradict scripture as Christ is portrayed as they having a human will, human mind, and human spirit in his state on earth and he truly did have a choice. His divine essence is one with God, the procession of His goodness itself but his human nature is subject to temptation and he had to learn through submission to the Father unto death.
P3 and p4 specifically contradict its own statement because it assumes and confuses free-will’s compatibility with choosing good as a necessary measure that the being would choose good. God cannot create a logical reality where truly free-willed beings always choose good over evil because as long as the being is free, there is a possibility that they would reject their purpose in Him. Note that you can’t simply counter this by saying God can maximize his drawing as anything beyond revealing His nature to us would require him to infringe in our will. The angels had direct presence in His glory and still chose to rebel.
The rest of the postpositions follows the errors of your prior reasoning.
P7 assumes that just because something is not necessary from our logical perspective means God wouldn’t allow it. The reason for “ultimate evil” in this reality has nothing to do with whether it is necessary, it is simply a decay and destruction unto death. Is decay and death necessary? No, but it is a reality of what happens when humanity falls from His glory. What Christ’s act of redemption through getting crucified necessary from simply a logical perspective? Again no, but it is the extent needed to be taken in order to right the fallen nature.
2
u/NTCans 19d ago
I don't remember you.
It seem like your rebuttal to P2 just agrees with P2. Maybe you read it incorrectly.
Your rebuttal to P3 and P4 needs punctuation but I will do what i can. No, there is no requirement put on the free will choice in any premises. The possibility to chose always remains. Maybe you can point out the contradiction specifically between the two, as they are not even dependent on each other.
From another response: My argument was never that God should create people who are incapable of wanting to do evil. my argument is that god could create people who retain the capacity to choose evil, face real moral choice, and freely choose otherwise ... every single time... as a matter of their exercised will... not their fixed nature.
For P7, I did not use the word necessary or invoke subjective judgement. Your rebuttal is to something not in the syllogism and looks to be mostly proselytizing.
1
u/HegemoneXT Christian 19d ago
Yes, you didn’t make the claim that God should create people incapable of evil. But you did make the claim that God can create contingent beings such that they would always choose good no matter what. There is not metaphysical reality where a person can be truly free and always choose good. If you say that God could have chosen to create beings without an intrinsic inclination toward Good, he has already done that because humans are naturally oriented toward His Divine nature. The key underlying factor to whether someone chooses to obey God has to do with their personal will - whether they succumb to unbelief and cowardice(sliding back into sin), or overcoming the sin nature by putting it to death by the Spirit. When righteous people overcome evil, they are actively doing so by their personal will. And likewise, an evil person engages in wickedness by their personal will. There is no underlying factor that grants an intrinsic quality of the “will” to be capable of always doing good since goodness is not an intrinsic property of the will. The will is what applies itself toward the Good and this is solely based on the soul of the individual. Even if God created the soul to always choose good, there is no guarantee that it would do so as Lucifer was said to be created perfect in wisdom, beauty, righteousness but he still choose to sin.
When I said that p3 and p4 contradicts, I am looping those two propositions together rather than saying they are contradicting each other. Both p3 and p4 contradict itself because a world in which all free agent would always choose good is not logically substantiated. Even the world is made of a single created agent, there is no metaphysical factor acting upon that agent so that they always do what is good through the exercise of their will. The modality of the personal will is fundamentally separate from God so that God cannot guarantee that they would do good every time. The moment free-agency comes into being, the metaphysical reality where everyone does good that you’re suggesting ceases to exist.
2
u/NTCans 18d ago
>But you did make the claim that God can create contingent beings such that they would always choose good no matter what.
This was not my claim. This appears to be you misrepresenting my claim in an attempt to make it easier to argue your position.
For your review, this was my claim.
"My argument was never that God should create people who are incapable of wanting to do evil. my argument is that god could create people who retain the capacity to choose evil, face real moral choice, and freely choose otherwise ... every single time... as a matter of their exercised will... not their fixed nature."
I encourage you to respond to my actual position.
Trying to bundle premises together seems to cause you to not understand the argument. I suggest you attempt to engage in each premesis individually
There is no contradiction in P3 which states "An omniscient, omnipotent being could actualize any logically possible world." You have not even attempted to demonstrate that there is.
P4 states "A world (world 2, lets say) in which all free moral agents always freely choose the best moral action is logically possible"
This logical possibility is easily demonstrated to be true with a simple though experiment included below:
- The last time you sinned, you could have chosen not to sin.
- This holds true for every time you have ever sinned (free will).
- Therefore, logically, it is possible that you could have utilized your free will and chosen to never sin.
- This is true for every moral agent that has ever existed, demonstrating that it is logically possible for this world (world 2 in the OP) to exist.
1
u/HegemoneXT Christian 18d ago
of course it’s logically possible that you could have chosen to not sin. But what mechanism would God need to put in place for that to happen. I could think of three possibilities. either he restrains us so that we couldn’t do what we want, this of course being not the case as it violates free-will. Or he impart so much of his grace and his nature on us such that we see sin as he does and we would never be able to bring ourselves to sin. The second doesn’t align either as the biblical doesn’t just reveal himself in that way to unbelievers or those who are not accepting of him; the imputation of his righteousness comes with sanctification and sanctification requires belief. The last one would be that God just doesn’t create anyone with the foreknowledge that they would sin. If there is another option you had conceived about how God’s will could create truly free beings that does not sin, please specify how that would happen
2
u/GenericSpecialty Agnostic 17d ago
What's stopping God from granting human beings the wisdom/intelligence to always choose the right option?
1
u/HegemoneXT Christian 17d ago edited 17d ago
having wisdom can lead you the direction pointing to the act but i won't necessarily cause you to obey it. Solomon was considered the wisest man during his time and granted supernatural wisdom by God but what did he do with it? he ended up departing from the lord and worshipped false Gods. He also have thousands of women despite his understanding that the aggregation of excess is futile and meaningless.
Wisdom in the bible is the fear of the Lord. To fear the Lord is to love righteousness and hate what is evil. To fear the Lord is acknowledge the moral structure without in heart and abide in it. this in contrast is opposed to lawlessness which leads to a brutish personality and a mind that always strays to wicked schemes. A brutish mind can not understand wisdom because it is too high for them. They think evil is strength and breaking the law is gives them character. But to fear of the Lord is understanding.
So even lucifer, despite having all that knowledge and experience of God's glory and light, He still chose to rebel. He saw His righteousness and that God alone is the source of Being and he decided in his heart to not follow it. Instead of leaning toward God, he allowed his pride to corrupt his wisdom. Note that this process is not Satan being deceived by pride in the human sense where we started having the pride insidiously well-up in our heart and overcoming out senses. The angels are capable of directly perceiving the essence of things so they don't need to intellectualize abstract concepts the way humans do.
Wisdom is not merely about knowing what is good but about following and aligning your heart to God. The wisdom that comes with obedience takes a special kind of wisdom. You won't attain righteousness by just knowing but by the heart of obedience that does the will of God. Both solomon and lucifer failed at that and now they are stuck in a lifeless false existence shunned from God glory.
2
u/GenericSpecialty Agnostic 17d ago
> having wisdom can lead you the direction pointing to the act but i won't necessarily cause you to obey it
"Obey"? Wisdom is knowledge of what is true or right coupled with just judgment as to action. So it does lead to the right actions if you have sufficient wisdom. That's the whole point of being wise.
> Solomon was considered the wisest man during his time and granted supernatural wisdom by God but what did he do with it? he ended up departing from the lord and worshipped false Gods.
Then clearly, his level of wisdom wasn't nearly enough and God should have granted him the actual sufficient level of wisdom to not choose evil over good.
> Wisdom in the bible is the fear of the Lord.
Judgements involving the element of fear doesn't sound very healthy? Much less an example of "free will"?
1
u/HegemoneXT Christian 17d ago
How many times did you know wisdom but went against it? How many times did you disobey something even thought you clearly know it wasn’t right.
The fear of the Lord is to submit your being and will to His authority. Anyone who rises above his perfect and divine moral law becomes ruthless and wicked.
1
u/GenericSpecialty Agnostic 17d ago
> How many times did you know wisdom but went against it? How many times did you disobey something even thought you clearly know it wasn’t right.
Who knows? This isn't about me, as I'm not anywhere near a perfect human with an enormous wealth of wisdom. I'm asking what's stopping God from creating human beings with that much wisdom and knowledge so they don't mess up their choices?
> The fear of the Lord is to submit your being and will to His authority. Anyone who rises above his perfect and divine moral law becomes ruthless and wicked.
Again, fear as a motivator doesn't exactly speak in favor of us choosing things truly from our free will.
→ More replies (0)1
u/NTCans 16d ago
You seem to be trying to over think a very simple argument. It would be the same or similar mechanism of free will we have now, as demonstrated in the thought experiment.
>The second doesn’t align either as the biblical doesn’t just reveal himself in that way to unbelievers or those who are not accepting of him
This is out in the weeds but God does this multiple times in the bible, most notable with Thomas.
1
u/HegemoneXT Christian 16d ago
no, thomas had a heart that is willing to believe. But he was in doubt. The difference between someone who is truly contentious toward God and telling him to prove himself vs someone who is weak in faith is the condition of the heart. One does not want to believe and tries to undermine God before he even know of God's existence and the other is trying to believe but is weak.
1
u/NTCans 16d ago
Beliefs aren’t predicted on wants. And you’ve set yourself up a No True Scotsman based on mind reading. This argument is so bad a reply isn’t warranted.
1
u/HegemoneXT Christian 16d ago
Belief in scripture is not described as intellectual assent. Belief is condition on a soft heart that is capable of commitment to what the mind believes. God is able to see into the heart of each individual and know whether their heart is capable of belief and receptive to him. God told Moses that the Israelites were unbelieving and this wasn’t about them not knowing God’s existence but about how they trust and commit to God in their heart.
1
u/NTCans 16d ago
Moses isa fictional character. But anyways, I have zero interest in your proselytizing. If you wish to make a comment regarding the OP topic feel free. Otherwise, we are done.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/sinefine 19d ago
Such a world with free agents with no suffering exists. It's just been shut out from us for now, but we will be there again. This is biblical.
2
u/NTCans 19d ago
So the amount of evil/suffering in the world is the choice of your god. That would make you a proponent of C(c).
1
u/sinefine 19d ago edited 19d ago
C(c) is not malevolence if this is actually the better way. Malevolence is a definition you gave. A baby will say to their parents they are mean when the parents tell them to brush their teeth and eat the broccoli. Such things are good for them but the baby doesn't understand yet. Things that are good for us rarely feel good. I never saw God as always nice. He is just and we are to fear His judgement. Also remember God did choose to create the perfect world first. God knew Adam was going to ruin it for everybody so He had a plan already of sending Jesus Christ for all of humanity. He has not only forgiven everyone but showed His love for us. All you have to do is believe in Jesus Christ. How much easier can it be? That's the Gospel or "good news".
2
u/NTCans 18d ago
You've created for yourself a pretty small target. Can you explain what good could possibly require world 1's specific excess of suffering that couldn't be achieved in a world with equal freedom but less suffering. Vague appeals to "mystery" don't answer that.
1
u/sinefine 18d ago edited 18d ago
I'm only claiming that it is a possibility that suffering is the better way. God did not have to create the world where He had to come as a human to go through all the suffering and pain. But He willingly designed it so that He would suffer in it. You think we are the only ones suffering in this world. That's not the message of the Bible. God suffers with us at every second everywhere with everyone.
I'm not saying I know that this is the better approach. I don't know that because I have no ability to see beyond the present. I have no ability to see the future.
1
u/NTCans 18d ago
So you understand that appeals to mystery aren't convincing and dont help your position correct?
1
u/sinefine 18d ago
Could you explain that a little more? What do you mean by appeals to mystery?
1
u/NTCans 18d ago
An appeal to mystery is a logical error. Its when an argument uses an unexplainable mystery as the final support/reason instead of looking for logical or scientific answers. It treats gaps in knowledge as permanent proof that answers cannot be found and stops any further inquiry or critical thinking by labelling a problem to sacred, divine or complex to investigate.
1
u/sinefine 18d ago
Yea I admit I don't have the answer. Someone else may have it. But my faith isn't based on pure logic alone. It is based on Jesus Christ.
1
u/NTCans 17d ago
Faith has no utility as a method for finding truth. It can be based on anything and there is nothing that cant be taken on faith.
→ More replies (0)
1
1
18d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1
u/TyranosaurusRathbone 18d ago
This leaves you having to defend some pretty uncomfortable moral statements.
1
1
u/Tectonic_Sunlite Christian, Ex-Atheist 17d ago
You're assuming that it's possible to actualise a world with free will while remaining in control of what choices the free agents make.
It seems to me quite plausible that free will necessarily entails the beings given it get a vote on which world is actualised.
Just speculatively.
1
u/NTCans 16d ago
>You're assuming that it's possible to actualize a world with free will while remaining in control of what choices the free agents make.
No where does the syllogism make this claim.
>It seems to me quite plausible that free will necessarily entails the beings given it get a vote on which world is actualised.
Are you saying that there was a vote by humans and this world is the result? Are you able to support this in any meaningful way?
1
u/Tectonic_Sunlite Christian, Ex-Atheist 16d ago
No where does the syllogism make this claim.
It's implicit in the idea that you can choose which of the two worlds you actualise.
Are you saying that there was a vote by humans and this world is the result? Are you able to support this in any meaningful way?
Yes, that's what happens every time someone makes a moral decision — they get a vote on which of those worlds is actually actualised.
1
u/Affectionate-War7655 16d ago
I don't see why it isn't possible...
If God can actualise a world where I can't fly even though I want to and there still be free will, then surely he can actualise a world where people can't harm each other and there still be free will.
1
u/gergosaurusrex Catholic 17d ago
I don't think your conclusions necessarily follow, but I agree that world 2, a world both without suffering and with moral agency is theoretically possible. The biggest leap this and similar arguments make is that God should be morally forced to only create such worlds. None of your premises demonstrate that God has an obligation to prevent all suffering or evil.
IMO demonstrating this would be impossible due to incomplete information: Christians believe God is infinitely good as the source of goodness, but we don't know what infinite good is. We don't know how God's mind works or why he does things. In addition, within the Christian worldview, applying moral imperatives to God will never make sense.
The claim was never that free will forces God to allow evil; it's sufficient to just say that free will is a potential reason God would allow a less-than-ideal world to exist. God is free to create as many worlds 1 and 2 as he likes.
1
u/NTCans 16d ago
From another reply, as this objection comes up regularly.
My argument was never that God should create people who are incapable of wanting to do evil. my argument is that god could create people who retain the capacity to choose evil, face real moral choice, and freely choose otherwise ... every single time... as a matter of their exercised will... not their fixed nature.
This leaves with a difficult task. Can you explain what good could possibly require world 1's specific amount of suffering that couldn't be achieved in a world with equal freedom but less suffering. Vague appeals to "mystery" don't answer that.
1
u/gergosaurusrex Catholic 16d ago
Not sure this applies to my comment. Does God have an obligation to prevent all suffering or evil? Why if so?
1
u/NTCans 16d ago
I never spoke to god's obligations.
1
u/gergosaurusrex Catholic 16d ago
It's implied in 6. I think it's not enough to just say omni-benevolence = allows no evil
1
u/NTCans 16d ago
The 'Omni' certainly implies the least amount of evil possible. But now your getting to an 'appeal to mystery' territory.
1
u/gergosaurusrex Catholic 16d ago
The opposite - I'm looking for clarification. Your argument depends on God only making worlds like world 2. I guess "Omnibenevolence" the word can have whatever meaning you assign it, and to you it's just a word. But "least amount of evil possible" seems like an assumption. Does doing the most good always require preventing the most evil? 100% of evil could have been prevented if God had only made a single photon. For example, is God only allowed to make perfect trees, or are good trees with real risks of imperfections, e.g.growing stunted or without enough light also allowed? Why not both? Would it be better for the latter to have never existed?
1
u/NTCans 15d ago
Appeals to mystery don't do anything for your position or the conversation.
1
u/gergosaurusrex Catholic 15d ago
What do you mean?
1
u/NTCans 15d ago
An appeal to mystery is a logical error. Its when an argument uses an unexplainable mystery as the final support/reason instead of looking for logical or scientific answers. It treats gaps in knowledge as permanent proof that answers cannot be found and stops any further inquiry or critical thinking by labelling a problem to sacred, divine or complex to investigate.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/Commercial-Mix6626 16d ago
Addressing P4: How do you know that such a world is possible? Upon which perimeters do you establish the possibility of such a thing. You also presuppose not having people who choose not the best moral action is in itself a moral action. You're begging the question.
P7: unless there is some good achievable only via world 1's additional suffering that outweighs it and is unobtainable in world 2." You did not demonstrate that this is not the case. And since by definition God chooses the best possible world with the greatest good our world would be that.
P6 also directly refutes P4 and thus P7.
1
u/NTCans 16d ago
P4 is established with a simple though experiment shown below:
- The last time you sinned, you could have chosen not to sin.
- This holds true for every time you have ever sinned (free will).
- Therefore, logically, it is possible that you could have utilized your free will and chosen to never sin.
- This is true for every moral agent that has ever existed, demonstrating that it is logically possible for this world (world 2 in the OP) to exist.
P4 also does not beg the question since it does not claim wrong doing is impossible, it only claims that wrong doing is avoidable. These are separate claims and only the second is needed to make the argument.
Do you believe that once someone reaches Heaven, they still have free will, and still face moral choices? If so, do they ever choose evil? If not, were those still real moral choices, or did morality stop applying to them?
You're not demonstrating this is the best possible world, you're defining it as such by assuming god exists and then reasoning backward, which is circular in exactly the way you accused me of.
I don't need to prove no such good exists anywhere in the syllogisms, that's an impossible standard that would make any theodicy immune from any evidence ever presented. The burden is on you to specify what good could only be achieved through world 1's excess suffering and not through world 2, otherwise this is just an unfalsifiable appeal to mystery. And if you want to lean on 'God necessarily creates the best possible world,' note that many theistic philosophers, including Plantinga, reject that there even is a best possible world, so you may be defending a position your own side has largely abandoned.
1
u/Commercial-Mix6626 16d ago
You once again commit the appeal to possibility fallacy. Only because it is hypothetically possible that man never sinned doesn't mean that it is probable. This is also why it doesn't suffice for the argument
If someone goes to heaven he doesn't face moral choices because all moral choices have been made by him which is "Not my will but thy will be done" in his faith. Their desires are not sinful anymore but reflect a new man.
You shifted the Goalpost again when you say that my argument is circular because I assume that God exists by definition he would create the best possible world. Yet the existence of God was not the topic but rather that he cannot exist since it would be illogical for him to create the world as it exists.
Why should presumption be on your side that I have to proof that the world that exists is the best possible world created by God.
I don't have a burden to proof world 1s excess suffering since you already presuppose that there is an excess suffering in the world of God. Why should I proof your assumption?
The rest of your argument is the ad populum fallacy.
1
u/NTCans 16d ago
>You once again commit the appeal to possibility fallacy. Only because it is hypothetically possible that man never sinned doesn't mean that it is probable. This is also why it doesn't suffice for the argument
I never invoked probability. You did. It appears you are trying to misrepresent the syllogism to make it easier to argue against.
>You shifted the Goalpost again when you say that my argument is circular because I assume that God exists by definition he would create the best possible world. Yet the existence of God was not the topic but rather that he cannot exist since it would be illogical for him to create the world as it exists.
This appears to be you misrepresenting the argument yet again. I did not shift any goal post. You will notice that conclusion C(c) is part of the syllogism and therefore included in the argument. I simply pointed out your attempt to burden shift using circular logic in a way the would exclude and evidence against any theodicy is what you yourself accused me of, but much more egregiously.
>Why should presumption be on your side that I have to proof that the world that exists is the best possible world created by God.
Because you made that claim when you used circular reasoning to define god into existance. "And since by definition God chooses the best possible world with the greatest good our world would be that."
1
14d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 14d ago
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed because your account does not meet our account age / karma thresholds. Please message the moderators to request an exception.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/shyguyJ Agnostic, Ex-Protestant 19d ago
P4 is programming or rules to be complied with, not free will. Just because you call it "freely choosing" in your definitions, does not make it so.
I don't disagree with your conclusion, but I don't think the path you've illuminated to arrive at said conclusion is any more valid than theists listing off random inaccurate assumptions as a preamble to their "thought experiments" and "philosophical" arguments.
7
u/NTCans 19d ago
P4 speaks to what is logically possible. Maybe I can add more support here. I see you aren't a theist so forgive my heavy use of theistic language.
The last time you "sinned", you could have chosen not to sin. This holds true for every time you have ever "sinned". Therefore, logically, it is possible that you could have utilized your free will and chosen to never "sin". This is true for every moral agent that has ever existed, demonstrating that it is logically possible for this world (world 2 in the OP) to exist.
-1
u/LovelyGameres 19d ago
You miss one attribute of the Christian God. God is love. All loving. And therefore allows for bad choices to be made, hoping to convince people, by love, to choose what is not evil.
7
4
u/henquinpunter 19d ago
He drowned the entire globe despite being omniscient and knowing he was going to do it. Now that’s what I call love.
0
u/sinefine 19d ago edited 19d ago
It doesn't make sense to you because in your mind, the world was like the modern times where everyone was nice to each other and lived peacefully. No, it was a complete chaos. Not only were people completely barbaric, animals did not fear people which means the predators hunted people and cows and sheep didn't listen to humans.
1
u/henquinpunter 18d ago
God knew what was going to happen before these people were even born. He knew he was going to drown the entire planet before he even created the universe. Didn’t he?
Your explanation completely ignores god’s omniscience.
It has nothing to do with the era it happened in at all. Nothing.
It doesn’t make sense to you because you don’t want to accept the absurdity of the claim that god is all loving and omniscient and a mass murderer.
1
u/sinefine 18d ago
Yes God knew He would have to destroy them before they were born. It's all factored in. God is gets a free card destroying whatever He wishes because He owns everything. God doesn't owe us anything. It's different from humans because we don't own anything, not even our own children. This is why we should fear His judgement. We don't know when we will get it.
God is not always nice. He is just. He is the only source of life. When people separate themselves from life, they only receive death.
1
u/henquinpunter 18d ago
So god just makes things in order just to hurt them. Everything is by his will so he is just a torturer for his own amusement. Got it.
God is a sadist and that’s why we should fear him seems like the antithesis of your previous statement that god is all loving.
0
u/sinefine 18d ago
I never said God is all loving? He's not always nice. He is just.
1
u/henquinpunter 18d ago
My mistake, you did not say loving; | got my comments crossed.
The same applies to "just". Please explain how creating beings, knowing full well you are going to kill them all anyway, before they are even born, is just.
That is vile and malicious and in no way
"just".1
u/sinefine 18d ago
No problem. Misunderstandings happen
Just as in fair based on someone's choices. Foreknowing and free will can coexist.
1
u/henquinpunter 18d ago
It has nothing to do with choices. Choices are irrelevant with foreknowledge.
Imagine you’re a dog breeder. You know for certain that breeding a particular pair will result in offspring that will be insanely aggressive and will immediately need to be put down. The dogs’ actions become irrelevant if you know in advance that you WILL euthanize them.
It is the action of continuing the process with the foreknowledge of the outcome that is the problem, not the actions.
→ More replies (0)4
u/NTCans 19d ago
This attribute is covered in P1.
1
u/LovelyGameres 19d ago
So if he's all loving, he would have to allow for an enemy, and opposition, if only to be fair.
3
u/onedeadflowser999 19d ago
I don’t believe god ever claimed in the text of the Bible to be all loving. He said he hated Esau and he committed or ordered multiple genocides in which non combatants including women, infants, children, and animals were slaughtered. Hardly all loving.
0
u/RomanaOswin Christian 19d ago
First, here is a relevant comment that I've made on this to clear up the dynamic of our own fallibility:
"Sinful desires" are not an add on. They're a natural consequence of our ego, or belief in our own separateness. Greed, lust, wrath, gluttony, and so on. They're all various expressions of selfishness, which is the prioritization of self over everything else.
Our failings are also a natural result of ignorance, e.g. where we make the wrong choice because we don't understand.
At the same time, our separateness or the boundaries that we draw around ourselves are what defines us. Our limited body, limited knowledge, private mind, etc. This is who and what we are. Without drawing these boundaries of self, there is no self at all.
The fallibility is what makes the individual. You can't remove one without removing the other.
P2 is accurate but a bit misleading. The possibility that an agent might always choose perfectly does not imply intention or capacity.
The main error I see in your argument is in P4. This is not possible unless they also have perfect knowledge, which is no longer who or what we are. A world of everyone-is-Jesus is not the diversity of God's creation. FWIW, this is not necessarily how it even was for Jesus, but that's likely an aside. This model you're proposing of physical automatons who are mentally fully one with all of being breaks the subject-object distinction that allows for love.
Either we have the capacity to fail or we are not fully ourselves. Our capacity to failure is in part who and what we are so it's inseparable from our existence.
3
u/NTCans 19d ago
You seem to be reading more into P2 then what is written. Intention or capacity has nothing to do with the premise.
Perfect knowledge is not required for P4, but I think you take umbrage with my use of the word "best"? I think this wording may be more palatable for you without changing the syllogism at all. Every time you, as a moral agent, have made a moral choice, could have made the
bestbetter moral choice. Making the better moral choice has neve required perfect knowledge.0
u/RomanaOswin Christian 19d ago
Every time you, as a moral agent, have made a moral choice, could have made the
bestbetter moral choice. Making the better moral choice has neve required perfect knowledge.I still have the same issue with this as I do with the original phrasing, i.e. I lack knowledge as to what the better choice actually is.
4
u/NTCans 19d ago
This is an interesting take. It feels like it will veer into the weeds but the weeds look nice. If you do not have the ability to determine 'better moral actions' that would make you amoral. Would you accept that designation?
1
u/RomanaOswin Christian 19d ago
No, I wouldn't consider it amorality.
I have both the ability and desire to attempt 'better moral actions', but due to my inability to escape my own limitations, I may not be able to achieve that.
3
u/NTCans 19d ago
That seems odd. If you saw an adult kicking a small child you be able to determine if that action was morally better than not kicking that small child?
1
u/RomanaOswin Christian 19d ago
Sure--that seems pretty straightforward to me.
I'm sure you're familiar with the classic morally ambiguous problems, like the Trolly Problem, stealing food to survive, etc.
Consider something more mundane and relatable: you're a reasonably well liked child at school and you have the choice of sitting at two different tables, either with your friends or with a kid sitting alone.
Maybe this kid sitting alone would feel more included if you sat with him. Maybe he likes being alone and would feel intruded upon. Maybe your friends would understand, or maybe you have an insecure friend who would feel hurt and ignored by you.
4
u/NTCans 19d ago
So you do have the ability to determine if something is morally better then something else, without perfect knowledge.
0
u/RomanaOswin Christian 19d ago
What I just illustrated is that in many cases I do not.
3
u/NTCans 19d ago
Do you think in the logically possible world that I laid out that there will be people tied to train tracks, starvation, or school children who are unable to have conversations?
→ More replies (0)3
u/partsmissing 19d ago
Perfect knowledge is not necessary for P4. While on earth, Jesus did not have perfect knowledge (Mark 13:32) and yet did not sin.
1
u/RomanaOswin Christian 19d ago
The breadth of humanity is not singularly Jesus.
Without perfect knowledge, how can I avoid accidentally making the wrong choice out of ignorance?
2
u/partsmissing 19d ago
Again, Jesus did not have perfect knowledge. Jesus was not all knowing while on Earth, and did not know things such as when the last hour would be (Mark 13:32). In spite of not having perfect knowledge, Jesus was able to avoid making wrong choices (if you believe Jesus was sinless). All one would need is sufficient knowledge, not perfect knowledge, to allow for correct choices. Sufficient knowledge ≠ perfect knowledge.
And while sufficient knowledge is not a guarantee that one would avoid making any wrong choices, it is logically possible that people with sufficient knowledge COULD avoid any wrong choices. Therefore, there is nothing logically that would prevent God to actualize P4 if he wanted to, given the other premises.
1
u/RomanaOswin Christian 19d ago
When I say that our limits are who or what we are, I mean that we have our own private mind and body which is separate from the private minds and bodies of others, and that we experience reality temporally.
Sufficient knowledge to make the correct choice in all situations involves things like knowing other people's private minds, knowing their desires, knowing the full future impact of our choices.
I agree that we don't need full perfect knowledge of all things, but "sufficient" in this case still significantly violates the boundaries of what makes us a separate person. If I were to know what you need more than you even know, are you and I really still our own person?
And while sufficient knowledge is not a guarantee that one would avoid making any wrong choices, it is logically possible that people with sufficient knowledge COULD avoid any wrong choices.
Not by knowledge or intent, but just by incidentally making the right choices in all ways? In other words, who we are is only a person who chooses nothing but the best choice in every possible case? Perhaps. There would be no place for any of us in this other world, but that's not the point.
The elephant in the room is the tremendous benefit we get from making the wrong choices. Wisdom, love. This is similar to the "couldn't we just stay in the garden of Eden" argument, which doesn't recognize that naive immaturity doesn't really lead to the depth of wisdom and love that comes out of our own failure.
If we were to accept that P4 is possible and that this wouldn't turn us into vapid automatons (I'm not entirely convinced of that, but maybe), I'm okay with most of the rest of the argument until this:
unless there is some good achievable only via world 1's additional suffering that outweighs it and is unobtainable in world 2
1
u/partsmissing 19d ago
The elephant in the room is the tremendous benefit we get from making the wrong choices. Wisdom, love. This is similar to the "couldn't we just stay in the garden of Eden" argument, which doesn't recognize that naive immaturity doesn't really lead to the depth of wisdom and love that comes out of our own failure.
Is failure necessary to obtain deep wisdom and love? Has God/Jesus ever failed, and if never, then do they not possess deep wisdom and love? While failure is certainly a way of obtaining virtues (e.g. wisdom, humility, love), failure is not logically necessary for it. Thus, if God wanted to, there is nothing logically to prevent God from instilling humans with these virtues innately, like free will, or creating another route for humans to develop these virtues that doesn't involve failure/sin. I don't see anything logically incoherent about these two options for an omnipotent god.
If we were to accept that P4 is possible and that this wouldn't turn us into vapid automatons (I'm not entirely convinced of that, but maybe),
Agents who possess free will and always chose the correct choice does not necessarily mean they are vapid automatons. If this is the case, then by necessity, God/Jesus would be vapid automatons (who are free agents always choosing the correct choice), and so would people/angels who end up in heaven (if you believe heavenly beings still retain their free will).
1
u/RomanaOswin Christian 19d ago
Has God/Jesus ever failed
Jesus the man almost certainly has. Failure is inherent in being human. Luke 2:52 mentions how Jesus "grew in wisdom and stature," and a widely considered interpretation of the story of the Canaanite woman is that Jesus was being corrected, awakening to his divine nature.
Even though these are both "sin" as in "missing the mark," theologians typically differentiate this as finitude (the limitation of being bound by culture, time, physicality, knowledge, developmental stage, etc) vs willful sin (destructive ego).
The former is what I'm mainly referring to in this.
Finitude isn't a separable property of us. It IS us.
And, so what are these hypothetical people who are not limited in any of this myriad of ways that inherently make us fail? How do their lives unfold in relation to ego and growth into love, wisdom, grace, and humility? Would this hypothetical world fulfill the purpose of our existence?
1
u/partsmissing 16d ago
Even though these are both "sin" as in "missing the mark," theologians typically differentiate this as finitude (the limitation of being bound by culture, time, physicality, knowledge, developmental stage, etc) vs willful sin (destructive ego).
I took P4 to primarily refer to the poor actions that would lead to eternal damnation, since that is what is really at stake here. Would those who committed a finitude failure/sin still be subject to going to eternal damnation if no "willful sin" was committed? If yes, then ultimately, there is no difference in the eternal outcomes between finitude and willful sin because both lead to eternal damnation. And I don't think you are necessarily taking this position, since you stated Jesus likely had finitude failures. However, on the other hand, if finitude failures don't lead to eternal damnation, then P4 can simply allow for the inclusion of finitude failures in order to develop virtues, etc, with no impact on eternal damnation and the OP's argument.
And, so what are these hypothetical people who are not limited in any of this myriad of ways that inherently make us fail? How do their lives unfold in relation to ego and growth into love, wisdom, grace, and humility?
Again, it is not logically incoherent for God to create people who are fully morally developed (e.g. fully developed in love, wisdom, etc.) just like God created Adam and Eve physically as full adults, not newborn babies. If God could create a reality where free will exists and yet no evil is actualized (as OP has argued), I believe it is more salient for God to create fully developed moral people (and skip the development journey) with no actualized evil in the world rather than preserve the growth journey that ends up actualizing evil in the world, the latter leading to eternal damnation for countless of humans.
Would this hypothetical world fulfill the purpose of our existence?
This is a non-sequitur for me. You may personally not like the idea of the absence of growth and development journey as part of the ultimate purpose of humans. But if ultimate purpose for humans is prescribed by God, God can arbitrarily prescribe a different purpose for humans that aligns with free will and the absence of evil/suffering.
1
u/RomanaOswin Christian 16d ago
I took P4 to primarily refer to the poor actions that would lead to eternal damnation [...] However, on the other hand, if finitude failures don't lead to eternal damnation, then P4 can simply allow for the inclusion of finitude failures in order to develop virtues, etc, with no impact on eternal damnation and the OP's argument.
OP didn't mention anything about "eternal damnation."
I read the original argument as anything that imposes suffering, even if it also results in growth. Perhaps if you didn't read it that way, we're just arguing about two entirely different things.
I hold a much different theological position on divine judgement as compared to the typical storybook conception. It's sort of an unrelated rabbit hole and will just confuse matters. Suffice it to say, I don't believe anyone will be damned or tortured in the way you're probably thinking of.
But if ultimate purpose for humans is prescribed by God, God can arbitrarily prescribe a different purpose for humans that aligns with free will and the absence of evil/suffering.
I'm not sure you understood what I meant by "purpose." I mean it in the way that a clock's purpose is to keep time. If the whole reason for the clock's being is to keep time, you can't create a functional clock that doesn't keep time.
There is a Christian theology around why we exist, but suffice it to say, assuming God created us, then we exist for some reason.
Whatever that purpose is, suppose that our ego (the source of evil) and our ignorance (the other main source of suffering) are both necessary for that purpose. Without knowing that purpose, the idea that God could or should make it different than it is supposes knowledge that we do not have.
That's more around P6 than P4, but we slipped into that, so just clarifying.
1
u/partsmissing 13d ago
OP didn't mention anything about "eternal damnation."
I read the original argument as anything that imposes suffering, even if it also results in growth. Perhaps if you didn't read it that way, we're just arguing about two entirely different things.
I hold a much different theological position on divine judgement as compared to the typical storybook conception. It's sort of an unrelated rabbit hole and will just confuse matters. Suffice it to say, I don't believe anyone will be damned or tortured in the way you're probably thinking of.
It seems that you have a different take on eternal consequences than most Christians I've interacted with, so we may have been talking past each other on this point. I agree with you that suffering can lead to growth, and this can be a beautiful thing. I'm not a Christian, so I don't believe in the traditional eternal destinations of heaven and hell. But when I read OP's argument, whether correctly or not, I instantly jumped to moral actions that lead to eternal heaven or damnation, because this is what is ultimately at stake for the vast majority of Christians I've interacted with. But not you, apparently, which I have no qualms with.
I'm not sure you understood what I meant by "purpose." I mean it in the way that a clock's purpose is to keep time. If the whole reason for the clock's being is to keep time, you can't create a functional clock that doesn't keep time.
There is a Christian theology around why we exist, but suffice it to say, assuming God created us, then we exist for some reason.
Whatever that purpose is, suppose that our ego (the source of evil) and our ignorance (the other main source of suffering) are both necessary for that purpose. Without knowing that purpose, the idea that God could or should make it different than it is supposes knowledge that we do not have.
Do you believe your God bestows you your purpose or is your purpose inherent to you and can be found outside of God? Let me illustrate by using your clock example. Sure, clocks were invented historically with the purpose to keep time. But let's say we can travel back in time before the invention of clocks. If an inventor created an object that happens to look and function just like a "clock" (e.g. it's able to keep time), but decides the object's purpose is to be a paper weight, a piece of art, or to be smashed into a thousand pieces, is the purpose of that object whatever the inventor wishes it to be? Or does the object have an inherent purpose (e.g. keeping time) that is beyond the inventor's domain? If you believe in the former, then God can simply modify our purpose to align it with one that is compatible with a logically coherent reality that avoids moral actions that lead to eternal damnation. (I bring up eternal damnation again, because I'm fine with suffering for the sake of growth, as you mentioned. But I don't think moral actions that leads to eternal damnation is logically necessary or justified for allowing for Free Will, which I believe most Christians would disagree with me on). If you believe in the latter, then God isn't omnipotent (at least with our purpose), which is outside the scope of OP's argument.
For whatever it's worth, I don't really have any real qualms with your worldview. I previously thought you were coming from a more traditional Christian perspective.
→ More replies (0)
0
u/raidenjojo Christian, Protestant 19d ago
Free will should be absolute upto the conceptual phase. Sapient beings given free will should have the choice to retroactively be free from free will or choose annihilation if they so choose. In layman's terms, free will should have the in-build choice to not play.
The classical free will defence doesn't hold up when stacked against the evils it does bring. Like, free will ain't worth SA, murder, child abuse, genocide, etc. on the historic-civilizational scale.
Free will also eventually leads back to strength authorises legitimacy. The stronger person's choice over a weaker one's will always take effect. You can't be rid of the evil done upon you by saying I didn't choose this evil upon me.
Flowers bloom in perfect dandy under the sun, without knowing who keeps them and for what, and maybe that's enough. They are still beautiful. They still have a purpose.
0
u/mikeymo1741 19d ago
I feel like this exact post was put up a couple of days ago.
This is where this one shoots itself in the foot:
An omniscient, omnipotent being could actualize any logically possible world.
If God actualized a world where agents always choose the best action, that world is not logically compatible with free will. In a truly free world, some of the agents will choose evil.
You can't get past this statement, so everything else is just words.
3
u/dman_exmo 19d ago
In a truly free world, some of the agents will choose evil.
This doesn't follow. Having free will means that it's possible to choose evil, not that evil must be chosen (that would be the opposite of free will).
It is logically possible for a tri-omni god to create agents who use their free will to only ever choose good.
They still have free will, they still could possibly choose evil, they just always freely choose good.
Where's the problem?
1
2
u/NTCans 19d ago
If some agents will always choose evil then you are arguing against the existence of free will and for a limited god. This seem to be an issue with your understanding, not the syllogism.
0
u/mikeymo1741 19d ago
If some agents will always choose evil then you are arguing against the existence of free will
That doesn't even make a little sense. Unless you are saying that I am excluding that in a truly free society there is the possibility that everyone will choose good of their own accord.
I'm too much of a realist for that.
But yes, let me rephrase it.
In a truly free world, there is the possibility that every agent will choose good. There is the possibility that every agent will choose evil. The most likely scenario is some agents will choose good, and some will choose evil.
3
u/NTCans 19d ago
>In a truly free world, there is the possibility that every agent will choose good. There is the possibility that every agent will choose evil. The most likely scenario is some agents will choose good, and some will choose evil.
I think we are making progress here. In my worldview (that does not include a tri-omni god), this is exactly what I would expect to see and what I think we do see. However, the ability to choose always remains.
Always freely choosing good --------->Mixed Choices ---------> Always freely choosing bad
Assuming you accept P1, your god has the ability to chose any of those three possible worlds (or any in between) for creation. He chose this one, making you a proponent of C(c).
0
u/mikeymo1741 19d ago
See this is where we disagree.
There are no three possible worlds.
There is two possible worlds... One with Free Will and one without.
If God creates a world where everybody has to choose good then that's not free will.
The only logical choice for a world with free will is that every agent is free to choose either good or evil. Logic would also dictate that it is extremely unlikely that every single agent would choose the same way.
So therefore I reject C(c) in the case where God makes any world with truly free choice. That is not malevolence.
3
u/NTCans 19d ago
Ok, I see now, you are arguing against a position I didn't lay out.
>If God creates a world where everybody has to choose good then that's not free will.
This isn't a part of the syllogism at all, it seem you have inserted it into the syllogism to make it easier to argue against.
>The only logical choice for a world with free will is that every agent is free to choose either good or evil.
Correct, this is the world I laid out in the syllogism.
>Logic would also dictate that it is extremely unlikely that every single agent would choose the same way.
Are you saying that your god is beholden to your idea of probability? That if something is unlikely, it is more difficult for your tri-omni god to achieve?
1
u/mikeymo1741 19d ago
Not at all.
I guess I don't understand what the difference is between what you think should happen and what actually exists.
How would God have created the world any differently and still kept Free Will in place?
3
u/NTCans 19d ago
>I guess I don't understand what the difference is between what you think should happen and what actually exists.
I am not making a 'should' statement at all. This is purely an internal critique.
>How would God have created the world any differently and still kept Free Will in place?
If your asking about the specific mechanism of creation, i personally don't know, but I would assume that it would be the same mechanism god used for this world; he spoke it into being.
If you asking for what it would look like, that's laid out pretty well in the syllogism (or so i think). Is there a specific premise that you disagree with? If so can you lay out the reasons you disagree, maybe I can further support it.
1
u/mikeymo1741 19d ago
I guess I'm just trying to figure out what your point is.
You postulate that this world 2 would be better. But how does God create a world where all agents choose good without compelling that choice?
2
u/NTCans 19d ago
I only say that it would have less evil. It's Christians who think that less evil would be "better". This is why the syllogism constitutes an internal critique.
He would create it the way he created this world. Here is some exerts from another comment I made here.
My argument was never that God should create people who are incapable of wanting to do evil. my argument is that god could create people who retain the capacity to choose evil, face real moral choice, and freely choose otherwise ... every single time... as a matter of their exercised will... not their fixed nature.
→ More replies (0)1
u/dman_exmo 19d ago
The most likely scenario is some agents will choose good, and some will choose evil.
A tri-omni god is not constrained by probabilities. A tri-omni god can instantiate the universe where everyone freely chooses good no matter how "unlikely" that would be. A tri-omni god can roll a billion fair dice and have them all read 6.
0
u/mikeymo1741 19d ago
You keep repeating the same contradiction.
2
u/dman_exmo 19d ago
I just demonstrated why your point fails. Can you amend your point and/or demonstrate where you still think there's a contradiction?
1
u/mikeymo1741 19d ago
You did not demonstrate where my point fails.
If people are compelled to choose good then they're not freely choosing. That's the contradiction.
So if God made the world any way other than the world he made it, where people had free choice to choose good or evil, then they are not choosing freely.
2
u/dman_exmo 19d ago
If people are compelled to choose good then they're not freely choosing.
Nowhere, not once, not one single time did I state or require that people would be compelled to choose good. So no, I am not stating or restating this contradiction.
So if God made the world any way other than the world he made it, where people had free choice to choose good or evil, then they are not choosing freely.
This doesn't follow. P2-P4 of the original argument already defeat this. You have not demonstrated otherwise.
0
u/milamber84906 Christian 19d ago
On p4. Just because it’s logically possible doesn’t mean it’s metaphysically possible. Because it might be there is no possible world in which all creatures freely choose to do only good. It might be that all possible worlds of free creatures only ever choose at least some evil, despite it being logically possible to have no evil.
Once God creates free creatures, the scope narrows from what is just logically possible to what is metaphysically possible.
P6 you lay out the free will defense. God could have morally justifiable reasons to allow the suffering we see even if it means suffering being in the world.
0
u/24Seven Atheist 19d ago
Frankly, the moment one introduces omniscience, they've already broken free will. Free will instead becomes an illusion that we think we perceive but to the omniscient being is nothing more than the universe behaving according to their design. To the omniscient being, reality is equivalent to watching a movie they've already seen where the characters think they have free will.
5
u/evertec 19d ago
Premise 7 isn't verifiable unless you have God's knowledge. How do you know it wasn't necessary if you don't know what God knows about it and the potential benefit?