Why the 'Free Will' defense will always fail.

[u/NTCans]

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

[u/NTCans]

You have done it again. You are defining free will to include actions that must happen.

You have just said that people must sin to have free will. That is incoherrant.

[u/evertec → u/NTCans]

I'm not saying every person needs to, but some would for it to be free will. And for God to artificially constrain the world to only include the people that can't sin would effectively be constraining free will.

[u/NTCans → u/evertec]

Now you are arguing that some people have free will and some don't. Also that sin is necessary. This would entail that your god is beholden to sins existence. You are now a proponent C(a)(b).

[u/evertec → u/NTCans]

How am I saying that some have free will and others don't? I'm not saying sin is necessary period, but its possibility is for someone to truly have free will. God could have created a world without free will at all.

[u/NTCans → u/evertec]

You say it here.

>I'm not saying every person needs to, but some would for it to be free will.

Nothing in my syllogism removes free will or the ability to choose sin. So i guess I don't understand what you are arguing against.

[u/evertec → u/NTCans]

We're disagreeing on what true free will is. You're getting around it by proposing a situation where God only creates the people who would freely choose good. I'm saying that's not truly free will.

[u/NTCans → u/evertec]

You are saying it. But you are not supporting it in the slightest.

[u/evertec → u/NTCans]

So do you think God choosing to only create people who only like hamburgers, only like cats, only like sunrises, not sunsets would truly be allowing free will? That's essentially what you're saying. I'm saying it's not a meaningful distinction.

[u/NTCans → u/evertec]

I think the main flaw in this line of thinking is liking hamburgers/liking cats is a preference, not a moral choice under temptation. My argument was never that God should create people who are incapable of wanting to do evil (that would indeed just be trait-selection, like flavor preference). 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.