Independent of what they allowed to do, they were still free to choose right over wrong.
The basic problem is that there is no mutual agreement about the definition of “free will”. Some people assert that the “freedom to will” is inseparable from the “freedom to ACT on that will”. Others say that the ability to “will” something is all that is needed, the ability to ACT on that will is unnecessary. It is obvious that the second definition is nonsense.
Some people see not a beneficial, malevolent, or indifferent God because they see no God at all.
“God permits unnecessary suffering because it’s been said countless times by people everywhere” is a fallacy ad populum.Please explain why God permits unnecessary suffering and then dies for us?
No, the basic problem is that your statement “suffering is useless” is unproven and unprovable without liberal use of ad populum fallacy.
You are missing the point. I was responding to the assertion:
To which I replied:
I did not state - or even imply - it is a valid argument that “God permits unnecessary suffering because it’s been said countless times by people everywhere”. In fact such an argument doesn’t even make sense. What people say is irrelevant.
Free will does not entail constant freedom to do what we choose to do. Prisoners don’t cease to have free will simply because they are prevented from living a normal life. It is their **exercise **of free will that is limited. They are still free to choose what to believe, who to love and how to behave in their restricted environment.
Irrefutable. It’s good to see you in action.
The definition I gave was from the Oxford English Dictionary and is in-line with others:
The situation here is one of six million people in death camps who is about to be slaughtered. She is under immense intimidation, immense psychological pressure. With that hanging over her, her thoughts cannot possibly be free, if they can even be coherent. With no freedom to think, she cannot possibly have free will.
I know little of Luther except that he’s Batman’s archenemy. But yes, Isaiah also speaks of the hidden God:God doesn’t “deceive us by hiding in the shadows to somehow protect our free-will”.It would defeat the purpose of creating a predictable universe if God suspended the laws of nature whenever a person or animal is going to be harmed or killed.
Ironically Luther addresses the hiddenness of God in nearly every aspect of his theology:
The Cambridge dictionary definition does not include any implication that the choice can be accomplished. This is consistent with usage within the context of Catholic theology.
Exactly. Just like someone whose family is held hostage by some terrorists, who demand him to perform some horrible act - and if not, then his children will be burned to death. Does he have the freedom to “refuse”? Of course not.
Superman’s surely. All those double Ls. Lex Luthor, Lois Lane, Lana Lang.
:ehh:
That surprises me. I must admit to backing what others have been saying in this thread: that merely restricting one’s free will (in that you restrict their options in a practical sense) does not preclude the fact that you have free will in any case.
I guess analytical thinkers can fall in the trap of forgetting we’re not computers.
It was my ingenious ruse to unmask your secret identity, Señor Comic Book Guy.
*CCC 1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. “God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him.”
It is the **ability **to perform an act but that doesn’t imply the circumstances will always be favourable! Free will doesn’t mean we can do anything we like:
Abnormal circumstances do not invalidate the general rule. Otherwise people would never be innocent or guilty.