A question to all of you who defend unlimited "free will"

[Solmyr]

If we could not be sinners then we could not be saints.

From the standpoint of the victims it is a pyrrhic victory - at best. The victims would be much better off without the saints if all the villains would disappear. But of course this is a false dichotomy.

Your freedom to love your child, family and neighbors (in the widest possible sense) is not contingent upon the freedom of the villains to create mayhem - like in Orlando. I would suggest that everyone start to contemplate the events in Orlando, and ask herself… was it worth it? And hopefully come to the only rational conclusion: “No, it was not”.

 

[ynotzap]

From the standpoint of the victims it is a pyrrhic victory - at best. The victims would be much better off without the saints if all the villains would disappear. But of course this is a false dichotomy.

Your freedom to love your child, family and neighbors (in the widest possible sense) is not contingent upon the freedom of the villains to create mayhem - like in Orlando. I would suggest that everyone start to contemplate the events in Orlando, and ask herself… was it worth it? And hopefully come to the only rational conclusion: “No, it was not”.

From what I witnessed from the media, the reaction to the deadly massacre by the public was overshadowed by the positive outpouring of aid, help, and empathy and love for the victims and their families which accomplished more than negative demonstrations on the part of both sides. As one victim said " It is a beginning, in the right direction…"
I am not advocating that some one has to get killed to advance a cause, but because people do evil things,God can still draw a greater good from the situation by allowing it to happen.

 

[Richca]

Unbridled, but not complete.

Our will has determinants, among them our physical soma, our internal biology, our interpersonal geometry and our subconscious processing. It is conditioned as everything else in our beings.

Perfect freedom is a mirage.

ICXC NIKA

The human will is the first efficient mover of the soul’s powers. The body with its passions and desires can influence the human will but not move it efficiently. Neither is the intellect the efficient mover of the will. The intellect moves the will as an end moves an agent. As God is the first mover, only he can move the human will efficiently beyond the will itself. In other words, except God, nothing external to the human will can move it efficiently except the will itself. The intellect moves the will of course but as a final cause and the final cause is considered the cause of causes. But the final cause is not the efficient cause and the will is an efficient cause. The will and intellect are spiritual powers of the soul and they operate independently of any bodily organ or any part of the body unlike the soul’s lower powers such as the sensory or vegetative powers which function only through some bodily organ.

 

[Bahman]

Man could not merit forgiveness of sins, or make atonement for offenses against God…

What offenses against God? To disobey and eat fruit of tree of knowledge. That was unavoidable situation since there was tree in the Garden and Satan could have his tool in minds of Adam and Eve to temp them. So at the end of the day everything was matter of time, I mean they eventually sin. So who responsible for this situation? God.

 

[o_mlly]

From the standpoint of the victims it is a pyrrhic victory - at best. The victims would be much better off without the saints if all the villains would disappear. But of course this is a false dichotomy.

Your freedom to love your child, family and neighbors (in the widest possible sense) is not contingent upon the freedom of the villains to create mayhem - like in Orlando. I would suggest that everyone start to contemplate the events in Orlando, and ask herself… was it worth it? And hopefully come to the only rational conclusion: “No, it was not”.

“In light of heaven, the worst suffering on earth will be seen to be no more serious than one night in an inconvenient hotel” (St. Teresa of Ávila). Only faith can carry one beyond the suffering and death of loved ones by redefining death not as terminating event but a transmitting event.

 

[Solmyr]

I am not advocating that some one has to get killed to advance a cause, but because people do evil things,God can still draw a greater good from the situation by allowing it to happen.

Well, you should. If the final result is “better”, then there is no reason not to do it.

Besides, a “greater good” for whom? Not for the victims. This “greater good” defense does not hold. It requires that the “bad things” would be logically necessary for that “good” to happen, and that the “bad” things could not even be lessened without jeopardizing that “good”.

And don’t even try to bring up the heavenly reward for the victims. First, you don’t know it, and second, the massacre is not a logical prerequisite for bringing someone to heaven.

“In light of heaven, the worst suffering on earth will be seen to be no more serious than one night in an inconvenient hotel” (St. Teresa of Ávila).

This kind of attitude would “pardon” any all actions, if the result is “better”. No reward can ever justify an unrelated (and therefore) unnecessary, gratuitous evil. I just “love” (NOT!!) how the unaffected people downplay the events which only hurts others… Like the relatives of the one and only survivor of an airplane crash are very fast to declare: “it was a miracle that Joe survived”.

Only faith can carry one beyond the suffering and death of loved ones by redefining death not as terminating event but a transmitting event.

Indeed, one must “redefine” the event. Which is called “rationalization”.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Oh, I agree, that the word “unlimited” is a poetic exaggeration. The events in Orlando are horrific, and they were committed because the perpetrator had ENOUGH freedom to commit it. Many people put the “freedom” to a very high pedestal, saying that having such freedom is “worth” whatever is committed because of it. The question is: what is your opinion? Needless to say I say that it is not worth it. If I had the power to prevent such acts, I would do it in a heartbeat.

I’m not sure if I understand your question. Are you referring to the ability to make choices? Or, are you talking about the right to bear arms?

 

[GEddie]

I’m not sure if I understand your question. Are you referring to the ability to make choices? Or, are you talking about the right to bear arms?

The part quoted does not mention arms, so I’d imagine the meaning was more general.

Free-will has been a bone of choking for philosophical generations, even in places and times that codified no right to bear arms.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Solmyr]

I’m not sure if I understand your question. Are you referring to the ability to make choices? Or, are you talking about the right to bear arms?

I refer to the ability to commit acts like the one in Orlando. Our freedom to act is always limited. It does not make sense to allow actions that one definitely does not want to happen. Any decent human person would prevent such actions if she had the power to do it.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Oh, I agree, that the word “unlimited” is a poetic exaggeration. The events in Orlando are horrific, and they were committed because the perpetrator had ENOUGH freedom to commit it. Many people put the “freedom” to a very high pedestal, saying that having such freedom is “worth” whatever is committed because of it. The question is: what is your opinion? Needless to say I say that it is not worth it. If I had the power to prevent such acts, I would do it in a heartbeat.

This quote makes no sense to me. The irony is that we have no choice but to accept free-will. It’s a reality, not a mirage. If you want to get caught up in semantics about what free means, go ahead and bang your head up against the wall.

Discussing man made limits on free will is all well and good. But a discussion about, “If I was God, then…”, whatever. It’s not a question of “is free will worth it”, it’s a question of acceptance of reality. Which is, again, ironic that an atheist would turn to abstract belief in order to battle with the reality of free will.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I refer to the ability to commit acts like the one in Orlando. Our freedom to act is always limited. It does not make sense to allow actions that one definitely does not want to happen. Any decent human person would prevent such actions if she had the power to do it.

There are some who wanted it to happen. Obviously, the perpetrator himself, but also those who would sympathize with his actions.

“Any decent human person”, sounds like you think there is a certain moral boundary that cannot be crossed. How would people agree on such boundaries? Do we all have inalienable rights?

We, as a collective of people living together on earth, let this happen. Someone could have stopped him and did not.

 

[DCNBILL]

Originally posted by JDl1789: What if you had the power to deliver an infinite good as remediation for the suffering at the hands of another?

Consider: What if to arrest the God given power given to Satan to dominate those who like himself were proud and rebellious was to use Satan’s own pride and blindness against him and lead him to forfeit his reign or dominance? What if God became a humble human, and allowed Satan to use those he had dominance over, to crucify Him, a Just man, whom Satan had no right to dominate and thus forfeiting his power over men who turned to Him for deliverance from Satan’s dominance,or reign. Jesus being God made that sacrifice an eternal good, would that not answer the logical prerequisite for that “infinite good” as being a remediation for the suffering at the hands of another? Would that not make the argument valid? Personally I have no doubt that it would.

Sounds like a good plan to me.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Solmyr, what is the sense of “defend” in your title? And “is what worth what”?

We’re on this planet. Are you sentimental? Everyone on this planet, of whatever beliefs, has to try and cope. No-one at this forum has defended the action of the shooter. You haven’t complained about laws and policemen.

You haven’t explained what it is you are complaining of, other than the shooting by the shooter, as are we all.

What do you think of the issue of conditioning, which was brought up, and was commented on by several more, and which indeed cuts both ways?

 

[o_mlly]

…
This kind of attitude would “pardon” any all actions, …

Yes, one must be willing to forgive all trespasses. The alternative is an underlying cause of the Orlando evil.

Indeed, one must “redefine” the event. Which is called “rationalization”.

Not redefine, rather recognize.

 

[HelenRose]

How can you reconcile the desirability of unbridled “free will” with the events in Orlando?

Who believes in “unbridled” free will?

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

… Indeed, one must “redefine” the event. Which is called “rationalization”.

O_mlly implied rather boldly that she was speaking for the relatives of the victims and Solmyr implies that that may be going too far in general terms (because it’s solely up to them whether they go so far as to believe the same as O_mlly or not). That is a justifiable line, if not very clearly articulated.

In place of being off-pat, I have always taken the “yes, bad is bad” line. Do you think it more convincing, Solmyr?

 

[ynotzap]

"Ynotzap:

I am not advocating that someone has to get killed to advance a cause, but because people do evil things, God can draw a greater good (from evil) from the situation by allowing it to happen.

Well, you should. If the final result is “better”, then there is no reason not to do it.

Besides, a “greater good” for whom? Not for the victims. This “greater good” defense does not hold. It requires that the “bad things” would be logically necessary for that “good” to happen, and that the “bad” things could not even be lessened without jeopardizing that “good”.

The shooter in the massacre was motivated by hatred which led him to murder many, an intrinsic evil. Hatred was countered by the acts of charity (love) by many people, an intrinsic good that developed because the situation was allowed to happen. Where God is concerned, and He is, there are other goods that we don’t understand taking place with the souls of the individuals murdered ( I don’t expect you to believe, or understand this but we do). Salvation of one’s soul is always God’s concern for the individual. Even the gay community acknowledge the good things people were doing.

Now to say that God willed the murderer to kill people just so He could draw good from the act is to pervert the reason God allowed it. God desired the murderer to love not hate those he murdered, but he didn’t because he willed to murder. But because much pain was experienced you blame God for the evil act of a man, and say He shouldn’t allow it. You refuse to admit that man is free enough to commit these acts and the responsibility lies with the man, and not God, just because He allowed it. God can transform man’s irrational acts into creative, and good one’s in spite of man’s will, that’s our God:thumbsup: It reminds me of the old adage “Man proposes, and God disposes”

 

[Solmyr]

“Any decent human person”, sounds like you think there is a certain moral boundary that cannot be crossed. How would people agree on such boundaries?

Most people agree that causing gratuitous suffering is evil. Or torturing someone for fun.

We, as a collective of people living together on earth, let this happen. Someone could have stopped him and did not.

How do you know that? And if no one was in the position to stop him, then God would step in as the last defender - if he cared, of course. And that is what no believer will ever admit.

Who believes in “unbridled” free will?

Everyone who says that God should “respect” the free will of the rapist.

Where God is concerned, and He is, there are other goods that we don’t understand taking place with the souls of the individuals murdered ( I don’t expect you to believe, or understand this but we do).

If you don’t understand, then you are not in the position to argue about it.

You refuse to admit that man is free enough to commit these acts and the responsibility lies with the man, and not God, just because He allowed it.

That is precisely my question. If you are in the position to allow or prevent an act, and you allow it, then you are not in the position to wail: “but I did not will it”. You did not “object” to it enough to prevent it.

 

[ynotzap]

If you don’t understand, then you are not in the position to argue about it.

Only God judges a soul for its acts of good or evil, we can not judge, but we know God is just and rewards the soul for good acts and punishes the soul for the evil acts and we know what is good and what is evil, so we do understand, and are in the position to argue even if we do not know the particulars of each persons life and acts ( and I speak for myself, even though I know others agree., it’s in our beliefs)

Solmyr:

That is precisely my question. If you are in the position to allow or prevent an act, and you allow it, then you are not in the position to wail: “but I did not will it”. You did not “object” to it enough to prevent it.

Are you referring to God as “wailing”, God allowed the evil by His permissive will and you have been informed as to why, again are you saying God willed evil because He could have prevented it? God does not will any evil because He allows it. Did God will the murder of those people, if you say yes, then you make God a liar because the Fifth commandment of God is “Thou shalt not kill” God does not contradict Himself. Well I have to content myself with the thought “One can not give what he doesn’t have” So we agree to disagree.

 

[Solmyr]

Are you referring to God as “wailing”, God allowed the evil by His permissive will and you have been informed as to why, again are you saying God willed evil because He could have prevented it?

Hold it, please. I have NOT been informed as to why. Only God could give me the information as to “why” he permitted this act, and he is silent. The word “wailing” refers to a hypothetical trial with God as the accused and you as the defense attorney.

God does not will any evil because He allows it. Did God will the murder of those people, if you say yes, then you make God a liar because the Fifth commandment of God is “Thou shalt not kill” God does not contradict Himself.

I say something else. I say, it does not matter. The difference between allowing something passively and to actually performing the act is insignificant. If you would see that a child is playing next to a crevasse and can foresee that he will eventually lose his balance and fall to his death and you fail to take the necessary precautions, then this is not significantly different from actively pushing him into the abyss.

Maybe you will see this as a consequentialist argument, and discard is as such, but to disregard the consequences of an action is major irrationality - in my eyes of course. The consequences cannot be swept under the rug (so to speak).

There are very few possible arguments concerning the events in Orlando (and all similar events).

1. The “free will” of the attacker is “sacrosanct”. To interfere with it would be an greater evil, than allowing it. (This is the “free will defense”)
2. The “reward” for the victims overcompensates for the “evil” that happened. (This is the “greater good defense”)
3. There are a few more attempts, but I will not enumerate them. They are too nauseating to tell.

Well I have to content myself with the thought “One can not give what he doesn’t have” So we agree to disagree.

I am always willing to agree to disagree.

---

By the way, I started to realize how futile it is to attempt to have a rational conversation about “free will”, before it is actually defined. Some people say that “free will” only refers to the mental decision of someone, whether the decision can be carried out or not. Other see that the “will to do something” cannot be separated from the “ability to act on that will” (correctly, of course.)

To use a pretty gruesome example: God allows the “will” of the rapist to overcome (or conquer) the will of the girl to be raped. Some people argue that her “free will” is not affected at all, she is just unable to act on her will. Needless to say, that kind of argument is not acceptable. What is the point of a “will” if it cannot be carried out? Some people may even say that she is always “free” to lay back and enjoy the act, or she is “free” to accept it and offer it up to God. I actually heard both of these arguments.