One final time: freedom of will does NOT logically lead to evil actions

[Spock]

For one final time I am going to show that it is possible to have a world, where there is free will and there are no evil choices. I am tired of seeing the nonsensical argument that there are only two possibilities, either having free will and actual evil choices, or dummies (or robots) who are preprogrammed to do everything “right”. The proof will be a mathematical one, unquestionable.

1. Let’s start with a very simple world, where there is one moral agent, who makes one decision. In that case there are two possible worlds, one, where the agent makes a moral choice (regardless of how moral is defined) and another one, where the agent makes an immoral choice. God can actualize either one of these worlds. Therefore there is one world with free will and no evil evil choices. For any mathematician, this is sufficient. To those of you who are not mathematicians, it seems like a trivial example, which does not correspond to the real world. Therefore I am going to spell it out.
2. Now let’s consider a world, with one moral agent, who makes many decisions. Let the number of decisions be “N”. In this case there are “N + 1” possible worlds, where the agent makes exactly 0, 1, 2, etc… all the way up to N morally upright decisons. God can actualize either one of these worlds, so he can actualize the world, where the agent makes “N” moral decisions - in other words, when all the decisions are morally proper. One can make the argument, that this world is also too simplistic. So, let us carry on.
3. The next possible scenario is when there are “M” moral agents in the world, and each of them makes exactly one decision. In this case there are “M + 1” possible worlds, where 0, 1, 2, etc… up to “M” moral choices are made. God can actualize any one of these worlds, so he can actualize the one where each moral agent makes a morally good choice. In this world we also have free will, no coersion, and no immoral choices. Just in case some of you still harbor doubts I will spell out the final scenario.
4. The final possible scenario is where there are “N” moral agents, and each of them makes “M” decisons. Both “N” and “M” can be any arbitrary number, so this scenario precisely reflects our current world. Since each agent makes “M” decisions, the number of possible worlds is “(N + 1)*(M + 1)”. Of these possible worlds there is one where each agent makes only moral decisions. In all the other ones at least one agent makes at least one immoral decision. God can also instantiate or actualize any one of these worlds, since none of them contains a logical contradiction.

Result: No matter how many moral agents are in a world, and no matter how many decisions are made, there is at least one possible world where all the agents make only morally upright decisions - while retaining their free will. God can actualize this world since it contains no logical contradiction.

This is a **mathematical **proof. It shows that the existence of free will does not logically lead to immoral decisions - therefore it does not lead to pain, misery and suffering. If God wanted to, he could have actualized this world. Ours is not that world. Why God chose not to actualize that world is none of my concern. But the fact is that he did not, even though he could have done it.

Case closed. The argument that freedom of action inevitably leads to immoral choices is null and void. Please do not use it again. Of course I am not naive to hope that all of you will read this post, or that those who read it can understand it. But be as it may, if anyone ever brings up the incorrect argument, I will only point them to this thread.

 

[Eucharisted]

You forget that not all men want to be good.

For example, you don’t believe in God. That is your choice. You have chosen to sin. You might not even consider it a sin, and that, again, is your choice.

NOW do you understand free-will and the conditon of the world?

 

[Eucharisted]

I’ll even make my point on your level (which is higher than mine).

By your logic, you should not be able to sin. You should only be able to do good - no evil choices. However, you disbelieve in God. Disbelief in God is atheism. Atheism is a sin. Sin is a moral evil. You are committing evil. So you are able to commit sin, even though you shouldn’t be. Hence, your logic is flawed.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Gee, this sounds familiar…

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I agree that, if God wanted to, He could have actualized the world you describe. But I deny that the world you describe contains freedom.

My response, copied from forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=350392&page=9:

I do not see why a Being who creates free will out of a desire to have entities freely choose good, is entitled to cherry pick one particular possible universe in which they will – for all intents and purposes – not have that option. How is free will free if God had already chosen that you will choose the good?

I have great respect for your logical and mathematical acumen, Spock, and – on the mathematical point we discussed – I stand corrected. But I remain unconvinced that freedom is truly characterized by the metaphysical (God-ordained) reality of freedom stripped of the actualized reality of freedom.

The world you describe replaces suffering with tyranny – the choices that you say “we” would make would actually be made by God for us.

“Freedom is slavery,” said Orwell. In this case, I am quite convinced he would be right.

 

[Confessor01]

Honestly, all the replies have missed the mark.

Eucharisted pointed out that not all men want to be good. But the OP demonstrates that it is possible that there exists a world where such is the case.

Eucharisted also attempted to say that by the logic of the OP, Spock would not be able to sin. This does not follow. Spock merely established that there exists a possible world in which no one sins, not that this actual world is that possible world.

Prodigal_Son said that such a possible world would deny freedom, but there is nothing that categorically differentiates the actual world from a different possible world (viz. one in which there are only moral actions) that is actualized. In other words, if the actual world is simply one option among a multitude of possible worlds that God could have actualized, then it would not somehow be a denial of freedom for God to choose to actualize a different option.

---

Regarding the OP, I remember reading a debate between William Lane Craig and another atheist (in which WLC got thrashed, by the way). The atheist invoked an argument nearly exactly like this. (It wasn’t as mathematically refined; it simply made the point that there is a possible world in which all people freely choose moral actions.) I strongly recommend that this portion of the debate be read. (Look at the “pie-slice” section.) It’s a fairly brief read.

WLC’s defense against the OP, by the way, is by distinguishing between possible and feasible worlds; he attempts to say that although it is possible that God could create a world in which everyone behaves perfectly, it is not feasible. He never substantiaties this distinction, and in my estimation it is worthless.

Otherwise, for my “rebuttal” of the OP:

Yeah, we don’t have free will (i.e. philosophical libertarianism). Join the Calvinists! :frighten:

 

[Spock]

Honestly, all the replies have missed the mark.

Thank you Confessor! Triple cheers to you!

Prodigal_Son:

I agree that, if God wanted to, He could have actualized the world you describe. But I deny that the world you describe contains freedom.

Now this is an argument, which merits and needs a response.

Let’s examine a simple scenario. There are two moral agents (A and B), and each makes one decison, which can be either moral (M) or immoral (I). There are 4 possible worlds.

1. Both decisons are moral (M + M)
2. Both decisons are immoral (I + I)
3. A makes a moral decision, while B makes an immoral one.
4. A makes an immoral decision, and B makes a moral one.

Is there a free will in all of them? In scenario 1) there are no immoral decisions. But the decisions are made without coersion, so they are free. In scenario 2) all decisons are immoral. Is this a world with “more” freedom? Or do you think that in the first world God “forces” everyone to do good, while in the second one God “forces” everyone to do bad? Are scenarios 3) and 4) the only “really” free ones, when both good and bad decisons are actualized?

We are talking about the odometer syndrom here. Our intution simply rejects the seemingly ordered sequence as being “forced” and the seemingly random sequence as “free”. But that is just a misconception. All scenarios are equally “free”.

If you really want to argue, you could say that choosing any one of the aforementiontioned scenarios, God predestines or preordaines everyone’s choices, while leaving the individual freedom alone. That is defintely true. But it is true for all the worlds. Catholics state that there is no strong “predestination” and God’s foreknowledge does not “force” anyone to act in a “predifefined” manner. The individual acts of decisions are still free from coersion. But by choosing any one of the possible scenarios and actualizing any one of them, God decides up front, who will make moral and immoral decisons. And that is strong predestination.

This simplified scenario should suffice. I could go and analyze the generalized picture, with “N” moral agents and “M” decisons made by all of them, but there is no need. It might be even more confusing for the mathematically disadvantaged (or challenged).

 

[tonyrey]

For one final time I am going to show that it is possible to have a world where there is free will and there are no evil choices.

Free will implies that God chooses to restrict His free will forever. He chooses to intervene **sometimes **to prevent the evil consequences of the abuse of free will but He always chooses not to prevent evil decisions. If He intervened too often it would defeat the purpose of sharing His free will - which is to enable us to choose how to live and to shape our own destiny.

If you deny that free will exists you deny that good and evil exist.
If you affirm that free will exists you imply that God exists because free will and goodness presuppose a Source of free will and goodness.

 

[Spock]

Free will implies that God chooses to restrict His free will forever. He chooses to intervene **sometimes **to prevent the evil consequences of the abuse of free will but He always chooses not to prevent evil decisions. If He intervened too often it would defeat the purpose of sharing His free will - which is to enable us to choose how to live and to shape our own destiny.

Irrelevant. The proof I presented is mathematical and irrefutable. Among all the possible worlds there is at least one, where there is no need for God to restrict his will, because everyone always chooses the moral way to act, out of their own volition.

If you deny that free will exists you deny that good and evil exist.
If you affirm that free will exists you imply that God exists because free will and goodness presuppose a Source of free will and goodness.

Both of these are wrong, but they do not belong to this thread, so let’s discuss them somewhere else.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

For one final time I am going to show that it is possible to have a world, where there is free will and there are no evil choices. I am tired of seeing the nonsensical argument that there are only two possibilities, either having free will and actual evil choices, or dummies (or robots) who are preprogrammed to do everything “right”. The proof will be a mathematical one, unquestionable.

1. Let’s start with a very simple world, where there is one moral agent, who makes one decision. In that case there are two possible worlds, one, where the agent makes a moral choice (regardless of how moral is defined) and another one, where the agent makes an immoral choice. God can actualize either one of these worlds. Therefore there is one world with free will and no evil evil choices. For any mathematician, this is sufficient. To those of you who are not mathematicians, it seems like a trivial example, which does not correspond to the real world. Therefore I am going to spell it out.
2. Now let’s consider a world, with one moral agent, who makes many decisions. Let the number of decisions be “N”. In this case there are “N + 1” possible worlds, where the agent makes exactly 0, 1, 2, etc… all the way up to N morally upright decisons. God can actualize either one of these worlds, so he can actualize the world, where the agent makes “N” moral decisions - in other words, when all the decisions are morally proper. One can make the argument, that this world is also too simplistic. So, let us carry on.
3. The next possible scenario is when there are “M” moral agents in the world, and each of them makes exactly one decision. In this case there are “M + 1” possible worlds, where 0, 1, 2, etc… up to “M” moral choices are made. God can actualize any one of these worlds, so he can actualize the one where each moral agent makes a morally good choice. In this world we also have free will, no coersion, and no immoral choices. Just in case some of you still harbor doubts I will spell out the final scenario.
4. The final possible scenario is where there are “N” moral agents, and each of them makes “M” decisons. Both “N” and “M” can be any arbitrary number, so this scenario precisely reflects our current world. Since each agent makes “M” decisions, the number of possible worlds is “(N + 1)*(M + 1)”. Of these possible worlds there is one where each agent makes only moral decisions. In all the other ones at least one agent makes at least one immoral decision. God can also instantiate or actualize any one of these worlds, since none of them contains a logical contradiction.

Result: No matter how many moral agents are in a world, and no matter how many decisions are made, there is at least one possible world where all the agents make only morally upright decisions - while retaining their free will. God can actualize this world since it contains no logical contradiction.

This is a **mathematical **proof. It shows that the existence of free will does not logically lead to immoral decisions - therefore it does not lead to pain, misery and suffering. If God wanted to, he could have actualized this world. Ours is not that world. Why God chose not to actualize that world is none of my concern. But the fact is that he did not, even though he could have done it.

Case closed. The argument that freedom of action inevitably leads to immoral choices is null and void. Please do not use it again. Of course I am not naive to hope that all of you will read this post, or that those who read it can understand it. But be as it may, if anyone ever brings up the incorrect argument, I will only point them to this thread.

Yes, but the chance of this world happening, according to your mathematical theorem (which is devoid of any factors influencing decisions eg. I’m hungry, so I’ll steal to eat), is 1/((N+1)*((M+1)).

For any significant number of N or M, this probability is remote.

In one way however Heaven comprising of God and angels alone is that singular world. Fallen man gets into heaven only by the grace of God through Redemption, but the angels who obey God’s will are eternally in heaven.

But the fact that angels rebelled as Lucifer did indicates that even in heaven, evil decisions have been made.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Yes, but the chance of this world happening, according to your mathematical theorem (which is devoid of any factors influencing decisions eg. I’m hungry, so I’ll steal to eat), is 1/((N+1)*((M+1)).

For any significant number of N or M, this probability is remote.

In one way however Heaven comprising of God and angels alone is that singular world. Fallen man gets into heaven only by the grace of God through Redemption, but the angels who obey God’s will are eternally in heaven.

But the fact that angels rebelled as Lucifer did indicates that even in heaven, evil decisions have been made.

Actually I short changed the odds. There should be another factor, since it is extremely unlike each individual would make only one moral decision. So there should be another factor in there, which would make the odds a great deal slimmer, nigh impossibly high in reality. But that factor would be impossible to calculate.

 

[Spock]

Yes, but the chance of this world happening, according to your mathematical theorem (which is devoid of any factors influencing decisions eg. I’m hungry, so I’ll steal to eat), is 1/((N+1)*((M+1)).

For any significant number of N or M, this probability is remote.

It is not a question of probabilities. According to the Christian belief, the world does not just “happen randomly”, it is the result of the conscious decision of God. God could choose any one of these possible worlds to be actualized. He could have chosen the one where everyone freely makes only the right decisons (many of them), or the one where everyone freely makes only the wrong decisons (also many of them), or anything in-between. All the worlds are logically and physically possible.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

It is not a question of probabilities. According to the Christian belief, the world does not just “happen randomly”, it is the result of the conscious decision of God. God could choose any one of these possible worlds to be actualized. He could have chosen the one where everyone freely makes only the right decisons (many of them), or the one where everyone freely makes only the wrong decisons (also many of them), or anything in-between. All the worlds are logically and physically possible.

No, because if HE chooses a world where people make only right decisions, He would be predetermining that all their choices would be righteous choices. That would be like putting 40 numbered balls in a barrel and then determining beforehand what the outcome would be if they were drawn one by one. The balls would then be predetermined in their movements.

For us to have “Free will” (and in another thread “Free will and foreknowledge revisited”, I’ve written about my personal experience in relation to this. I suggest you read it.), He has to take His hands off, and let US make the decisions.

Once He does that, there is no way that He can be certain that all choices will be righteous ones. It doesn’t mean they MUST be evil in the purely mathematical sense, but since we’ve got free will, the odds are extremely unlikely that such an idyllic scenario will happen.

But then this makes “evil” nothing more than a mathematical construct, and does not take into account WHY people or demons make evil choices.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Thank you Confessor! Triple cheers to you!

Now this is an argument, which merits and needs a response.

Let’s examine a simple scenario. There are two moral agents (A and B), and each makes one decison, which can be either moral (M) or immoral (I). There are 4 possible worlds.

1. Both decisons are moral (M + M)
2. Both decisons are immoral (I + I)
3. A makes a moral decision, while B makes an immoral one.
4. A makes an immoral decision, and B makes a moral one.

Is there a free will in all of them? In scenario 1) there are no immoral decisions. But the decisions are made without coersion, so they are free. In scenario 2) all decisons are immoral. Is this a world with “more” freedom? Or do you think that in the first world God “forces” everyone to do good, while in the second one God “forces” everyone to do bad? Are scenarios 3) and 4) the only “really” free ones, when both good and bad decisons are actualized?

We are talking about the odometer syndrom here. Our intution simply rejects the seemingly ordered sequence as being “forced” and the seemingly random sequence as “free”. But that is just a misconception. All scenarios are equally “free”.

If you really want to argue, you could say that choosing any one of the aforementiontioned scenarios, God predestines or preordaines everyone’s choices, while leaving the individual freedom alone. That is defintely true. But it is true for all the worlds. Catholics state that there is no strong “predestination” and God’s foreknowledge does not “force” anyone to act in a “predifefined” manner. The individual acts of decisions are still free from coersion. But by choosing any one of the possible scenarios and actualizing any one of them, God decides up front, who will make moral and immoral decisons. And that is strong predestination.

This simplified scenario should suffice. I could go and analyze the generalized picture, with “N” moral agents and “M” decisons made by all of them, but there is no need. It might be even more confusing for the mathematically disadvantaged (or challenged).

There are a couple possible responses to this. In the above theorizing, you switch (or attempt to switch) the burden of proof from quality to quantity. If it is accepted that a two-decision universe may be free despite the absence of wrongdoing, then it must be acceded that an x-decision universe may be free despite the absence of wrongdoing, as x approaches infinity. Either way is strong predestination.

I agree.

My original point was that the universe you described was not free. When you tell me it is characterized by “strong predestination,” I gather that you agree with me. Yes, I know that the individuals’ decisions have been free from coercion, but this is not anything like ultimate freedom. (I am sure you are familiar with compatibilism, which is – in my humble opinion – an outrageously flawed take on free will.)

My first thought on the matter is that if God is, He obviously knew all this before the creation of the world. I can find no justification for the statement that “God is good” that can coexist with a reality of strong predestination. So I will be willing to reject “all of the above” ideas, as it were, at least provisionally.

The question then becomes: Is God capable of setting into motion a world which contains certain characteristics – free will, goodness, etc – but is otherwise randomized? This strikes me as a wonderfully interesting question.

In other words, my claim is that – whatever Einstein says – God plays dice.

I don’t think that omniscience is an insurmountable problem to this view, although I see why some might think it so. I hope it is clear what the rationale for such a claim is: God, knowing that strong predestination is involved in any thought-out choice of universe, and knowing that strong predestination is not reconcilable with free will, and thereby incompatible with justice, creates the world such that strong predestination is not. Whether God is capable of random action is a fascinating question, but I very much doubt that anyone can give a confident answer.

To be clear, I’m just following the course of the argument here, looking for a truth that will best conform to the reality of this world. I imagine there are other alternatives, and I’d love to hear them mentioned.

One oft-mentioned solution to the original problem is proposed by Richard Swinburne. He says that there is such a thing as a “higher good”, a good that can only be accomplished in the face of evil. Sympathy, courage, and self-sacrifice are higher goods, and would not exist without evil. This system has many appealing aspects, but it does seem to indicate that God directly creates evil, which is hardly easy to accept.

 

[Spock]

No, because if HE chooses a world where people make only right decisions, He would be predetermining that all their choices would be righteous choices. That would be like putting 40 numbered balls in a barrel and then determining beforehand what the outcome would be if they were drawn one by one. The balls would then be predetermined in their movements.

But, don’t you realize that the same reasoning applies to ALL the possible worlds? There is nothing special about either one of them, they are all comprized of decisons. No matter which possible world God consciously chooses to actualize, by the virtue of this action he predetermines the outcome of ALL the decisions.

With this post you just showed that active omniscience and free will are truly incompatible. Your only hope to resolve this dilemma would be to assert that God randomly chooses among the possible worlds, by closing his hypothetical eyes, and restricts his omniscience by “hiding” the outcome even from himself! In such a scenario he does not know who will make what choices. But even in this case only ONE possible world will be actualized, where there is a sequence of decisions - now unknown to us and also unknown to God. The world is still preordained.

There is only one possible solution to solve this problem, namely, if God is not omniscient at all. He has no idea what he is doing when he actualizes A world. The world just unfolds itself, without any information about it. In this world there is true free will, and the chances that everyone will make the right decision is truly infinitesimally small. But this is not what Catholics believe.

 

[Spock]

One oft-mentioned solution to the original problem is proposed by Richard Swinburne. He says that there is such a thing as a “higher good”, a good that can only be accomplished in the face of evil. Sympathy, courage, and self-sacrifice are higher goods, and would not exist without evil. This system has many appealing aspects, but it does seem to indicate that God directly creates evil, which is hardly easy to accept.

I will return to the other parts of your post tomorrow. This solution strongly reminds me of the old German saying: “Aus der Not eine Tugend machen” - “make a virtue out of necessity” - in other words: “sour grapes”. Since there are evils in the world, let’s try to rationalize their existence. I do not accept this method. Especially since those “higher goods” are subjective.

I cannot take time to answer the rest today, because we are “having an old friend for dinner” - to quote the last sentence from the movie “Silence of the Lambs” - but let me assure you, the meaning here is not the same as the movie implied!

 

[Eucharisted]

To Confessor and to Spock:

I will try to better explain my reply. But before I do, I would like to say that since we’re talking about creation and free-will, both of which come from God, than I ask that you cooperate with the realtiy which God has caused to be and not attempt to show me that free-will isn’t from God, men can do good without God’s help, Heaven dosen’t exist, etc.

Spock says there is a possible world where there is no evil. Since no one can do good without God’s grace, there are two possible scenarios: 1) everyone is full of grace, like Blessed Mary, or 2) everyone enjoys the Beatific Vision.

Regarding two, God has deigned that man must earn his way to Heaven. Everyone believes that a child must be good in order to be rewarded, and if a child is bad he is chastised, and this is because God put such a moral code in man’s heart. It is called the Natural Law. This code is how God acts. He dose not give out a reward for a creature simply existing. That’s not how rewards works. He rewards good and punishes evil. So, God created a world where evil is punished and good is rewarded, and this includes man’s salvation and damnation. Hence, man must earn his enjoyment of the Beatific Vision. To put it in simplier terms: man was created in God’s Image and Likeness, and so, how man lives, so he will be live after death: if he did not live in God, he will not live with God in Heaven; if he did live in God, he will live with God in Heaven.

Regarding one, God did not create everyone full of grace because He knew that not everyone would accept His graces. Mary said Yes to God’s Will, essentially saying Yes to His graces; by accepting to be a part of the Redemption of man, she received the fullness of graces of the Redemption, which Jesus won for her by His redemptive Death and which she enjoyed since her conception. Mary, though sinless, was not without free-will. Just as a holy person can still say No to God, so too, Mary could have said No to God’s Will. Such a case would be a paradox, but, God, who is all-knowing, would have known Mary’s choices since eternity and at every moment, just as He knows all of our choices since eternity and at every moment, and so, He would know if she would say No and choose another woman to be Jesus’ Mother; but since He knew she would say Yes, He chose her to be Jesus’ Mother.

And so I go back to my original point in showing you that by your sin, a world where there is no possible evil is not possible. You have chosen to sin, to rejct the grace of faith, and so, you have disproven your own claim that God could force everyone to accept His graces and be morally good. Free-will, in and of itself, cannot be forced; it can be pushed and influenced, but not forced. That is the beauty of our freedom. We are truly free. God has given us this freedom so we can freely choose good, yes, but, some choose evil, unfortunately. And I will show this in the fall of man.

Before the fall of man, there existed a world where there was no evil. It was a world similar to the possible world of no possible evils. Man, from among all animals, was given the gift of immortality, whereby he could not suffer nor die, and he was in complete control of himself, not being tempted, and was in harmony with creation. It is the equivalent of how the world views a naturalistic paradise, that is, a paradise without God. But God was there, giving man graces. And He had prepared man for the temptation; He had given him all the necessary graces. He had even made him a companion, Eve, who made him very happy. Like I said, it was paradise. But man chose to sin anyways. Why? Because man is not all-powerful. Even Mary, with all her graces, was still subject to temptation, though she chose not to give into temptation. Man chose himself over God, even though he was completely happy. The fall of man mirrors the fall of Satan, who, even though he knew God’s Love and Mercy, still rejected God, out of envy for man, who he believed was so pathetic that he should not be united to God via the Incarnation.

 

[seductus_sum]

My original point was that the universe you described was not free.

+1.

Spock, when you say “God can actualize either one of these worlds,” do you not mean, “God can make us do whatever he wants”? Although God does have such power, I agree with Prodigal_Son that the result of God using that power to “actualize” a particular world in which everyone chooses to do good would not be a world of freedom.

 

[tonyrey]

The proof I presented is mathematical and irrefutable. Among all the possible worlds there is at least one, where there is no need for God to restrict his will, because everyone always chooses the moral way to act, out of their own volition.

You seem to be the only one who thinks it is mathematical and irrefutable! You are ignoring the fact that God does not create free will. He shares His free will with us unconditionally.

There are not many possible varieties of free will. We either have it or we do not. If we always chose good rather than evil we would be as perfect as God! The fact that we are finite beings implies that we cannot always choose good. Always to choose good implies either that we are infallible or that our choices are controlled by God.

Both of these are wrong, but they do not belong to this thread, so let’s discuss them somewhere else.

 

[nuntym]

For one final time I am going to show that it is possible to have a world, where there is free will and there are no evil choices. I am tired of seeing the nonsensical argument that there are only two possibilities, either having free will and actual evil choices, or dummies (or robots) who are preprogrammed to do everything “right”. The proof will be a mathematical one, unquestionable.

1. Let’s start with a very simple world, where there is one moral agent, who makes one decision. In that case there are two possible worlds, one, where the agent makes a moral choice (regardless of how moral is defined) and another one, where the agent makes an immoral choice. God can actualize either one of these worlds. Therefore there is one world with free will and no evil evil choices. For any mathematician, this is sufficient. To those of you who are not mathematicians, it seems like a trivial example, which does not correspond to the real world. Therefore I am going to spell it out.
2. Now let’s consider a world, with one moral agent, who makes many decisions. Let the number of decisions be “N”. In this case there are “N + 1” possible worlds, where the agent makes exactly 0, 1, 2, etc… all the way up to N morally upright decisons. God can actualize either one of these worlds, so he can actualize the world, where the agent makes “N” moral decisions - in other words, when all the decisions are morally proper. One can make the argument, that this world is also too simplistic. So, let us carry on.
3. The next possible scenario is when there are “M” moral agents in the world, and each of them makes exactly one decision. In this case there are “M + 1” possible worlds, where 0, 1, 2, etc… up to “M” moral choices are made. God can actualize any one of these worlds, so he can actualize the one where each moral agent makes a morally good choice. In this world we also have free will, no coersion, and no immoral choices. Just in case some of you still harbor doubts I will spell out the final scenario.
4. The final possible scenario is where there are “N” moral agents, and each of them makes “M” decisons. Both “N” and “M” can be any arbitrary number, so this scenario precisely reflects our current world. Since each agent makes “M” decisions, the number of possible worlds is “(N + 1)*(M + 1)”. Of these possible worlds there is one where each agent makes only moral decisions. In all the other ones at least one agent makes at least one immoral decision. God can also instantiate or actualize any one of these worlds, since none of them contains a logical contradiction.

Result: No matter how many moral agents are in a world, and no matter how many decisions are made, there is at least one possible world where all the agents make only morally upright decisions - while retaining their free will. God can actualize this world since it contains no logical contradiction.

This is a **mathematical **proof. It shows that the existence of free will does not logically lead to immoral decisions - therefore it does not lead to pain, misery and suffering. If God wanted to, he could have actualized this world. Ours is not that world. Why God chose not to actualize that world is none of my concern. But the fact is that he did not, even though he could have done it.

Case closed. The argument that freedom of action inevitably leads to immoral choices is null and void. Please do not use it again. Of course I am not naive to hope that all of you will read this post, or that those who read it can understand it. But be as it may, if anyone ever brings up the incorrect argument, I will only point them to this thread.

sigh The problem with that Spock is you forgot the practical element. Have you considered what kind of God would make such a world where mankind has free will but cannot make an immoral act?

That God would be EVIL. How come?

In such a world, if God made man and tells him he cannot make an immoral act, then God would actually eliminate free will. Remember, for free will to exist, it must have CHOICES OF IMPORTANCE, where there can be dire consequences for each act. Tell man that any choice of his is moral, and he would realize he would not have anymore choices of importance in the end, for any choice he makes lands him to heaven…even if he slits his throat.

The only alternative then is for God NOT to tell man that he cannot make an immoral act. Can you see how CRUEL that is? Each man and woman goes through heartaches and difficulties and such, only to learn that in the end everything was for naught because he or she could only make moral decisions, and thus their fighting was FOR NOTHING because they could not lose their salvation. Man would be alone in the world, because the moment man asks God in prayer “What is right, and what is wrong?” then either God has to lie, or He remains silent.

God in such a world would either be unloving or a liar.

And as we all know, God is All Good; not a stain of evil should be found in Him. He cannot make such a world and remain good.

Besides that world would be so boring