Please note: because you're not logged in, you may be viewing older cached versions of pages which are served up to reduce server load.
Free Will and the Problem of Evil
Is the Free Will defense inconsistent?
Print Free Will and the Problem of Evil | |
|
The_Art_of_War
Initiate Usergroup: Members Joined: Dec 26, 2009 Total Topics: 1 Total Posts: 3 |
 #1
Subject: Free Will and the Problem of Evil A common solution to the problem of evil is an appeal to free will: “God is wholly good, wholly omnipotent, and wholly omniscient, but he cannot interfere in human affairs because that would interfere with human choice.” However, in offering this as a solution, the assumption is made that in order for humans to have free will they must be capable of doing bad things. And not only should they be capable, but they must also actively cause evil; otherwise God could have it so that humans were free to choose their actions, but as perfect creations they always chose to do good. This, of course, would be a better (one entailing more good) outcome than the imperfect situation that is observed. Therefore God, defined as a wholly good being, would choose that option if it did not invalidate his “free will clause.” So, for free will to be a solution to the problem of evil, anything that has free will must entail evil. But then one might whether God has free will? Yes? Then he causes evil and is not omnibenevolent. No? Then he is constrained by something and therefore not omnipotent. If free will is a solution to the problem of evil, then God is not God and in fact the notion of God is nonsensical. So, we have reductio ad absurdum, and unless the Christian theist would like to give up logic (this may be surprisingly common) , they had best find a better defense than this trite tactic. |
|
keda
Ijon Tichy  Usergroup: Members Joined: Jul 25, 2005 Location: Finland Total Topics: 40 Total Posts: 4040 |
#2
It seems like you are saying that either everyone causes evil (including God) or nobody does. This seems like a strawman argument. All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country In thought, men distance themselves from nature in order thus imaginatively to present it to themselves--but only in order to determine how it is to be dominated - Adorno and Horkheimer |
|
CharlieP
banned  Usergroup: Members Joined: Dec 20, 2009 Total Topics: 12 Total Posts: 122 |
#3
The real problem is, I've NEVER heard someone argue “God ... cannot interfere in human affairs because that would interfere with human choice.” Everything is an action of God in all of our lives everyday. The holy spirit is inside all of us and everywhere, and guides everything. It all seems like semantics to me and all we might accomplish with this post is insulting Christianity. Who is to say we are not perfect beings, without wills of our own, without evil, following the will of God? Have faith, my child. Edited by CharlieP on Dec 26, 2009 - 11:04 PM |
|
jorndoe
Investigator  Usergroup: Members Joined: Sep 06, 2008 Location: Canada,Denmark Total Topics: 30 Total Posts: 1113 |
#4
Brief argument from pain, suffering, loss, and whatnot (related to the problem of evil), a trilemma of sorts: 1. Premise: there is an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient God 2. Premise: God created our reality, us, free will, etc 3. Premise: our world, as created by God, is reasonably consistent with our observations 4. Cholera outbreaks caused pain, suffering and losses, which is bad 5. Cholera was a bad thing 6. By utilizing (God given) free will and intelligence humans can do good themselves? 6.1. John Snow (physician, 1813-03-15 — 1858-06-16) laboured to understand and end Cholera with good success — link 6.2. we (humans) can help ourselves and be away with some pain, suffering and losses 6.3. humans can do some good, and have 7. Cholera was good? 7.1. God could, but did not prevent the pain and suffering from Cholera 7.2. Cholera was not a bad thing 8. humans (such as John Snow et al) have done some good that God have not 9. humans are more potent (and/or knowledgeable) than God Observations: • 5. and 7.2. are contradicting • 1. and 9. are contradicting • one (or more) of the premises is incorrect Prime candidate for abandonment: • 1st premise: there is an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient God Objection: • preventing the pain, suffering and losses from Cholera would have resulted in a worse situation; "God works in mysterious ways" Counterobjection: • the objection is nonsense  Conclusion: • God (or Gods) is redundant; we (humans) should help ourselves People are to themselves what they think; people are to others what they do. ∞ ∑ 1/i² = π²/6 i=1 |
|
CharlieP
banned Usergroup: Members Joined: Dec 20, 2009 Total Topics: 12 Total Posts: 122 |
#5
#6 is wrong because "good" cannot come from humans without God. You all will just argue for or against God but stop acting so dramatic in doing so. |
|
Zire
Aspirant Usergroup: Members Joined: Dec 24, 2009 Total Topics: 1 Total Posts: 34 |
#6
Police stop rapists and murderers. Are the police interfering with our free will? |
|
Zire
Aspirant Usergroup: Members Joined: Dec 24, 2009 Total Topics: 1 Total Posts: 34 |
#7
CharlieP wrote: #6 is wrong because "good" cannot come from humans without God. How would you know? |
|
jorndoe
Investigator Usergroup: Members Joined: Sep 06, 2008 Location: Canada,Denmark Total Topics: 30 Total Posts: 1113 |
#8
CharlieP (#5) wrote: #6 is wrong because "good" cannot come from humans without God. You all will just argue for or against God but stop acting so dramatic in doing so. Are you saying God caused some good by being away with some bad God also had caused? Interesting. Actually, I'd say Cholera wasn't bad, it just caused some suffering (which is bad though). People are to themselves what they think; people are to others what they do. ∞ ∑ 1/i² = π²/6 i=1 |
|
Apathy Kills
Epicurean disciple  Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: May 07, 2007 Location: United States, MIDWEST Total Topics: 31 Total Posts: 530 |
#9
jorndoe wrote: Objection: • preventing the pain, suffering and losses from Cholera would have resulted in a worse situation; "God works in mysterious ways" Don't forget Hick's soul-making defense. "In the end there were no simple answers. No heroes or villains; only silence." - Never Cry Wolf |
|
The_Art_of_War
Initiate Usergroup: Members Joined: Dec 26, 2009 Total Topics: 1 Total Posts: 3 |
#10
Charlie P wrote: The real problem is, I've NEVER heard someone argue “God ... cannot interfere in human affairs because that would interfere with human choice.” Everything is an action of God in all of our lives everyday. The holy spirit is inside all of us and everywhere, and guides everything. It all seems like semantics to me and all we might accomplish with this post is insulting Christianity. Who is to say we are not perfect beings, without wills of our own, without evil, following the will of God? Have faith, my child. For some reason I often find a nebulous idea of "free will" used as a defense against the problem of evil-- I'm sure you must have seen similar discussions. However, in rejecting the free will defense, you are subjecting yourself to the question: If everything is "guided by the holy spirit" then why are there ostensibly "bad" things in the world? If God is wholly good and creates and guides his creation, then how could he cause evil? What is your alternate response to these claims... that cholera is a good thing??? (ie: everything in the world is good). Edited by swstephe on Dec 28, 2009 - 6:02 PM. Reason: fix quote tags |
Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.