There is an Evil God, irony of the God debate

[vsedriver]

If you do not have at least two options which you can carry out, and if you are not in the position to make a choice about it, then you have no free will.

But we always have two moral options to choose between. We have the free will to choose good or evil.

Oh, the “will” is there, it is merely futile. If you are in a locked room, and a fire starts, you can “will” not to be burned, but that “will” is irrelevant since you lack the means to escape.

Being in a burning, locked room is not a moral situation.

It is so very simple. You stipulated that it is not necessary that the “will” could be carried out. As long as you have the “will” it is enough. Therefore if God interferes and prevents a rapist to carry out his intent, then his free will is not curtailed. Not sure what your problem was.

God wouldn’t go against his promise of free will to his creatures by preventing a rapist from carrying out his intent. This does not meant that the rapist avoids punishment from his free will choice to commit evil. Free will comes with consequences.

 

[Serious]

Before I address the meat of your response, it would seem that it would be helpful to resolve this continuing sticking-point. Can you show me where, in the article, it speaks to this ‘small print’ of “alternatives that can be carried out”?

I already did. It does not have to be “spelled out”. It is obviously implied.

After all, I quoted you the second paragraph, where it specifically speaks to the difference between ‘choice’ and ‘action’, and falling squarely on the side of ‘choice’ in this discussion.

So what? There is a disagreement, and I say that the ones who distinguish between a “freedom of will” and the “freedom to act it out” are wrong.

The notion of “alternatives that can be carried out” is specifically what the article disregards, since “there are always external constraints on the range of options we can meaningfully try to undertake” and therefore “these conditions and constraints are not (usually) our responsibility”

Well, to say that “there are always external constraints on the range of options we can meaningfully try to undertake” is clearly nonsense. Always??? Sheer idiocy. What the heck does it mean to “meaningfully try to undertake an option” if the option is impossible to carry out? The word “meaningfully” again implies (actually spells out) that the “options” which cannot be carried out are not “options”. That particular sentence is as meaningless as it comes.

You complain that I fail to recognize your point: I don’t – I see what you’re saying, but I reject it as being out of scope in this discussion. You seem to be oblivious to what I’ve been saying, to the extent that when you point to an article that makes my point, you think it’s trying to demonstrate your point…!

And it did demonstrate my point.

Yes – clearly, I have the ability to choose; however, I do not have the ability to actualize my choice. Nevertheless, the choice is there, and the external constraints thwart only action, not choice.

Think about it. If one accepts that the “freedom of will” simply means that we can “choose” among possible and impossible “options”, then - by definition - our freedom is never really limited, it is only limited by our imagination. And it cannot be curtailed except by smashing the person’s skull of erasing his whole brain. Nonsensical definition.

By the same token, from your definition it follows that the “free will of the person being raped is never curtailed”, merely her freedom to “carry out her will is curtailed”. Also follows the “free will of the blackmailed person is intact”, he is not even physically prevented from from acting out his desire (like the person who is being raped), he is “free” not to succumb to the threats against his family… You know my friend, with all due respect your definition is insane. No sane person would agree that the blackmailed person’s free will is intact, or that the raped person’s free will is not curtailed.

And to show what nonsense you are advocating I simply can point out (again) that according to your definition God can prevent the rapist’s ability to carry out his threats without “touching” his free will. And thus the so called “free will defense” fails.

 

[Serious]

Being in a burning, locked room is not a moral situation.

Irrelevant. Free will is not limited to morally charged situations.

God wouldn’t go against his promise of free will to his creatures by preventing a rapist from carrying out his intent. This does not meant that the rapist avoids punishment from his free will choice to commit evil. Free will comes with consequences.

Bolllocks. The victim has been violated, her freedom has been curtailed, and no punishment can “undo” it. And why does God “prefer” the free will of the rapist over the free will of the victim? Is that how a loving God works?

 

[Gorgias]

I already did. It does not have to be “spelled out”. It is obviously implied.

So what? There is a disagreement, and I say that the ones who distinguish between a “freedom of will” and the “freedom to act it out” are wrong.

LOL! OK – so on one hand, they’re trying to imply that free will is about free action; on the other, they’re saying that there’s a difference between ‘free will’ and ‘free action’. “Obviously implied”? More like “obviously in denial!” Oh – and to say that “philosophers disagree” is more a tautology than a proof of your assertion!

Well, to say that “there are always external constraints on the range of options we can meaningfully try to undertake” is clearly nonsense. Always??? Sheer idiocy.

Really? OK – I’ve asserted to you that a valid counter-example is sufficient to rebut an assertion. Please provide a counter-example – even one will demonstrate that the claim is wrong. (Remember, though: I get to counter your counter-example – and I’m certain that I can provide an example of an option that is constrained, in any example of a range of options without constraint that you attempt to construct. Try me. )

What the heck does it mean to “meaningfully try to undertake an option” if the option is impossible to carry out? The word “meaningfully” again implies (actually spells out) that the “options” which cannot be carried out are not “options”. That particular sentence is as meaningless as it comes.

And yet, it is the proof text you submitted to demonstrate that your assertion about the nature of free will. Hmm… can I conclude that your assertion is likewise ‘meaningless’?

You seem to be oblivious to what I’ve been saying, to the extent that when you point to an article that makes my point, you think it’s trying to demonstrate your point…!

And it did demonstrate my point.

Q.E.D. … :sad_yes:

Think about it. If one accepts that the “freedom of will” simply means that we can “choose” among possible and impossible “options”

No. Let’s try again. Free will addresses pre-determination, not attainability of actions.

, then - by definition - our freedom is never really limited, it is only limited by our imagination.

…unless it’s limited by a being who pre-determines our choices! Yes – you’ve got it!

And it cannot be curtailed except by smashing the person’s skull of erasing his whole brain. Nonsensical definition.

sigh. No, you don’t…

It can be curtailed by a closed system in which cause follows effect deterministically, without the rationally-conditioned choices of the agents within the system. No nonsense. No skull-bashing. No ambiguity.

By the same token, from your definition it follows that the “free will of the person being raped is never curtailed”, merely her freedom to “carry out her will is curtailed”.

Right! The victimization is a victimization of action, not a victimization of the person in the right to the integrity of their own mind! (It is nonetheless heinous, but you’ve accurately honed in on the injustice of rape!)

Also follows the “free will of the blackmailed person is intact”, he is not even physically prevented from from acting out his desire (like the person who is being raped), he is “free” not to succumb to the threats against his family…

Correct. However, by using his rationality and his free will, he may very well decide that his best course of action is to succumb to the demands of the blackmailers. On the other hand, he may decide that the best course of action is to call the authorities, and involve them in the capture of the blackmailers. Or, he may decide to just ignore the situation alltogether and hope for the best. ‘Free will’ speaks to the ability to make a decision; it doesn’t speak to the validity or attainability of the choice made.

You know my friend, with all due respect your definition is insane. No sane person would agree that the blackmailed person’s free will is intact

How odd. I’ve just provided you with three alternatives; each are choices that may be made in that situation, and clearly, each are alternatives that real people have made in exactly this real situation. Yet, you claim that there’s no evidence of free will here. You’re in the minority, my friend. At some point, you’re going to have to ask yourself, “why is all the traffic in my lane going the wrong way” and instead entertain the question, “am I going the wrong way in this lane?!?!?”

And to show what nonsense you are advocating I simply can point out (again) that according to your definition God can prevent the rapist’s ability to carry out his threats without “touching” his free will. And thus the so called “free will defense” fails.

Sigh. Ok, let’s try this one again.

Look – I’m not claiming that when God allows a person to actualize the activity of rape, that this is an example of God allowing free will. Rather, when God allows the person to make the decision to rape, that’s the salient moment for the discussion of free will. (From a Christian perspective, you might recognize this from Jesus’ words in the Gospels: when a person decides to commit adultery in his mind, he has already committed the sin.)

However, you raise a different issue: given that God allows all to have free will, and God knows all that people choose to do, why is it that God allows them to actualize their immoral decisions? That is a completely different question! It addresses the question of Divine Justice, not the notion of Free Will.

Hey – if you want to talk Divine Justice, I’m good to go! Just stop conflating the two, please, so that we can have a productive discussion.

 

[Serious]

Correct. However, by using his rationality and his free will, he may very well decide that his best course of action is to succumb to the demands of the blackmailers. On the other hand, he may decide that the best course of action is to call the authorities, and involve them in the capture of the blackmailers. Or, he may decide to just ignore the situation alltogether and hope for the best.

If it is your family that is being threatened, you will see only only one course of action: to submit to the demands. There is no other course of action. No sane person would dare to risk their family. And no sane “jury” would find fault with the person for succumbing to the threats - and as such they would admit that the person “caving in to the demands” is NOT morally responsible for the action.

‘Free will’ speaks to the ability to make a decision; it doesn’t speak to the validity or attainability of the choice made.

Do you know the phrase: “SSDD”? It applies to your “reasoning”.

 

[Gorgias]

If it is your family that is being threatened, you will see only only one course of action: to submit to the demands. There is no other course of action.

In other words, there are many options to choose from; however, it is your opinion that there is only one reasonable choice to be made. That’s fair. Nonetheless, the other choices exist, even if you choose to avoid them.

Do you know the phrase: “SSDD”? It applies to your “reasoning”.

Oh, well… guess you were also wrong about who would first resort to personal insults, huh?

We have been getting a bit circular in our discussion, I guess. Good luck in your search for truth – I hope you find it, some day!

 

[Serious]

In other words, there are many options to choose from; however, it is your opinion that there is only one reasonable choice to be made. That’s fair. Nonetheless, the other choices exist, even if you choose to avoid them.

And you say that “the one and only rational choice” was “freely” chosen? Just like the person who has a gun pointing to his head “freely” chooses to cave in to the demand of the blackmailer (he could “freely” choose to refuse and die?). Or the woman who is being raped at knifepoint “freely chooses” to be raped (she could have “chosen” to be stabbed?). And the person in the burning room can “freely” choose to get burned or fall to his death.

Oh well. Once I met someone who asserted the same nonsense for a while. But once I explained it to him, he understood how irrational it was. A 50% success rate is not too bad.

Oh, well… guess you were also wrong about who would first resort to personal insults, huh?

Actually it is not an insult. It is an acknowledgment that there is not reason to continue, because everything has already been said. To think that it is an insult is just a further proof of irrationality. Bye.

 

[Gorgias]

And you say that “the one and only rational choice” was “freely” chosen?

Yes; free will lies in the ability to make a choice among alternatives. Its the ability to engage rationality and utilize it as you wish. (Some will choose to let rationality pass them by; that’s their choice.) The lack of free will, however, is determinism: some set of external forces have determined each of your reactions, throughout your entire life.

Positing one situation in which you feel that you have only one choice is not proof of determinism, my friend…

Oh well. Once I met someone who asserted the same nonsense for a while. But once I explained it to him, he understood how irrational it was. A 50% success rate is not too bad.

And if he ever comes to his senses and rejects your take on it, it’ll be an 100% success rate… here’s hoping!

To think that it is an insult is just a further proof of irrationality.

It must be thoroughly comforting to think that your interlocutors are all irrational and you alone have a corner on rational thought, eh?

 

[clem456]

Irrelevant. Free will is not limited to morally charged situations.

Bolllocks. The victim has been violated, her freedom has been curtailed, and no punishment can “undo” it. And why does God “prefer” the free will of the rapist over the free will of the victim? Is that how a loving God works?

This whole discussion is pointless without the common sense realization that Love rules the universe (lets not even discuss this in explicit Catholic terms, for the sake of some common ground).

God respects each person’s free will out of love for them. God NEVER forces his love on a person. People are free to committ evil, be negligent etc…Here’s a common sense analogy to illustrate how love operates (a very poor one compared to God’s love, but here goes) ::
You love a woman, let’s say your wife for example. You would like to be loved in return. You treat her well, in fact in would be right and just for her to return your love. Let’s say she does not, or she does it imperfectly, out of free choice or malice, or out of defect of some kind, you are not loved the way you should be. Let’s assume you have the power to force her love, as God does have. Would you want that? Would it be love to force her? No, that makes your wife a cheap plastic blow-up doll, becasue you have taken away her freedom to choose love. Our natural reason tells us that we could not live this way. There would be no creative action in the world, no fulfillment. Who would want to live?

God does not prefer one person’s free will over another, that is painfully obvious. He respects the free will of ALL persons. If a person is harmed unjustly, God absorbs that injustice on the cross. The soul is eternal, our earthly injustices are not, so your victim is not a victim of God, but rather saved from the ravages of misused free will, by God’s common suffering with us. So, when you say no punishment can undo injustice, you are mistaken.

None of this makes sense out of the context of Love.

 

[vsedriver]

Irrelevant. Free will is not limited to morally charged situations.

 

[vsedriver]

And you say that “the one and only rational choice” was “freely” chosen? Just like the person who has a gun pointing to his head “freely” chooses to cave in to the demand of the blackmailer (he could “freely” choose to refuse and die?).

 

[clem456]

Your concept of God seems more congruous with reality than the Christian God though. And I agree that belief in a good God seems to be an emotional need - and I think you and I agree reality does not support the existence of a good God.

Some would argue that realism can only come to the conclusion that God is good, or, is Love itself. Faith in God should appeal to reason and common sense.

How do you know you exist? Your existence is revealed to you by the existence of others, (you may include God in that or not, I do, for the sake of our discussion maybe it doesn’t matter). If you lived in a sensory-deprived box, or a personal world of your own making without regard for others, you would be in a bad predicament. Your sense of existence would be badly warped to say the least. Only in realtionship to others is our existence revealed. Genesis expresses this very well as mankind discovers himself in the context of the whole of creation. The indisputable fact is, we do not create our own existence. No reasonable person can dispute that.

So what does it mean to be created? Can creation be an act of indifference? I think our reason would tell us that creation comes out of Love (good). Love is self evident through creation, as people create vaccines, and create artwork, music, create families, live and die for one another, in realtionship to one another, all creative action. The nuts and bolts of our existence testify to Love. Even if we limit ourselves to an examination of the human world we experience, nothing endures except Love. Nothing continues to exist except Love. I may try to construct the means of evil, and death and destruction may result, but it does not endure. You may say that so many people are accidents or that people treat each other badly. That is true, but those things do not endure. They fade away. Our world is full of signs of redemption… out of the worst attempts at evil, good things happen, bad people become good, bad situations form a person to do good things. What is that? Is that indifference at work?

 

[Serious]

What makes you think that because God allows people to act evilly that He prefers that? What evidence do you have that God prefers the evil acts people do over the good acts that people do?

Only an idiot would allow something that he does not want to happen, and has the power to prevent it. Since he allows it, it is his preference… or he is an idiot, or maybe he is impotent to prevent it. Your choice.

The only way for God to stop people from doing evil would be to take away their free will which brings us back to determinism.

You can’t have it both ways. God does not have to take away their “free will”, he could simply prevent them from carrying out their will. According to your (and Gorgias’s) definition, it is not necessary to be able to carry out their desire. This nonsense definition that “will” can be separated from “carrying out that will” paints you into a corner. If the ability to act upon your will is not important, then God can remove all the evils actions without affecting our “free will”. Gorgias did not seem to comprehend this. Do you?

The victim’s violation will be repaired by God’s love and perfect justice.

Not even God can change the past. Not even God has an “undo” command.

 

[clem456]

Only an idiot would allow something that he does not want to happen, and has the power to prevent it. Since he allows it, it is his preference… or he is an idiot, or maybe he is impotent to prevent it. Your choice.

If your girlfriend comes to your house tonight and tells you she is leaving you, you have the power to make a choice. You can prevent it. You can lock the doors and imprison her in the basement (it happens). We’ll assume you wouldn’t do that. Does your decision reflect on your intelligence (idiocy)? Or your impotence? No, you could have, and were smart enough to, but by some unexplainable decision making power, chose not to.

You can’t have it both ways. God does not have to take away their “free will”, he could simply prevent them from carrying out their will. According to your (and Gorgias’s) definition, it is not necessary to be able to carry out their desire. This nonsense definition that “will” can be separated from “carrying out that will” paints you into a corner. If the ability to act upon your will is not important, then God can remove all the evils actions without affecting our “free will”. Gorgias did not seem to comprehend this. Do you?

God respects free will even to the point of bad choices. There is no human dignity without free will. It’s a necessary component of love.

 

[Serious]

If your girlfriend come to your house tonight and tells you she is leaving you, you have the power to make a choice. You can prevent it. You can lock the doors and imprison her in the basement (it happens). We’ll assume you wouldn’t do that. Does your decision reflect on your intelligence (idiocy)? Or your impotence? No, you could have, and were smart enough to, but by some unexplainable decision making power, chose not to.

Bad example. If my ex-girlfriend (currently my wife or 30 years) would want to leave me, I would respect her decision. If she felt that she does not want to live with me, then I would not want to live with her. The forceful restraint would ne enter into the picture.

God respects free will even to the point of bad choices. There is no human dignity without free will. It’s a necessary component of love.

According to vsedriver and Gorgias free will does not include the ability to carry out that will. So if God would prevent the criminals from acting out their desires, their “free will” would be left intact. They managed to invalidate the so called “free will defense”, though so far they did not acknowledge this fact.

 

[clem456]

Bad example. If my ex-girlfriend (currently my wife or 30 years) would want to leave me, I would respect her decision. If she felt that she does not want to live with me, then I would not want to live with her. The forceful restraint would ne enter into the picture.

That’s exactly my point in giving you the analogy to our relationship with God.
You posted this:

““Originally Posted by Serious
Only an idiot would allow something that he does not want to happen, and has the power to prevent it. Since he allows it, it is his preference… or he is an idiot, or maybe he is impotent to prevent it. Your choice.””

You made the point that God, because He allows the undesireable to happen, is either impotent or an idiot. I gave you common experience to illustrate that is not the case in a relationship, which is what God-us is. We seem to agree that relationships are not merely built on power and intelligence.

According to vsedriver and Gorgias free will does not include the ability to carry out that will. So if God would prevent the criminals from acting out their desires, their “free will” would be left intact. They managed to invalidate the so called “free will defense”, though so far they did not acknowledge this fact.

I did not read these other posts so I don’t know the context, but God respects free will, including seeking the means and/or carrying it out, for better or worse. Doesn’t detract from omnipotence or love or intelligence. Life and love are gifts, some reject the gift and go their own way, some accept it.

 

[Serious]

You made the point that God, because He allows the undesireable to happen, is either impotent or an idiot. I gave you common experience to illustrate that is not the case in a relationship, which is what God-us is. We seem to agree that relationships are not merely built on power and intelligence.

Intelligence is enough. If someone does not want me, then I do not want him (or her). If she would not want to desire to be with me, then I would not force her, because I would not want to desire to be with her… simple quid pro quo. BUT! I certainly would not throw her into an everlasting torture chamber like the “loving” God does…

I did not read these other posts so I don’t know the context, but God respects free will, including seeking the means and/or carrying it out, for better or worse. Doesn’t detract from omnipotence or love or intelligence. Life and love are gifts, some reject the gift and go their own way, some accept it.

Then read the thread, and come back.

 

[clem456]

Intelligence is enough. If someone does not want me, then I do not want him (or her). If she would not want to desire to be with me, then I would not force her, because I would not want to desire to be with her… simple quid pro quo. BUT! I certainly would not throw her into an everlasting torture chamber like the “loving” God does…
.

So we agree then, that loving relationships respect free will, independently of a person’s (or God’s) power or intelligence. Our realtionships with people can be a mirror of the God-person relationship.

Regarding the torture chamber, if the wife’s decision to leave you is an unwise decision of her own free will, might she endure negative consequences? Maybe the loss of your loving companionship, regret possibly, despair? You don’t inflict the consequences on her (as you said, you allow her the freedom not to choose you). but still she reaps the consequences of her actions and decisions. Possible her torture is separation from you. This is all assuming you are a good guy which I’m sure you are.

 

[Gorgias]

If the ability to act upon your will is not important, then God can remove all the evils actions without affecting our “free will”. Gorgias did not seem to comprehend this. Do you?

Oh, don’t worry… I comprehended your argument: I just rejected it. Whether God allows us to make choices (as opposed to pre-determining everything) is the question of Free Will. Why God seemingly permits evil actions is a separate question: the question of Divine Justice. You’re conflating the two; and that’s something that you seem not to comprehend. The “question of evil” deals with both of these issues, but it’s important to distinguish between them in order to reach a rational conclusion…

Blessings,

G.

 

[Serious]

So we agree then, that loving relationships respect free will, independently of a person’s (or God’s) power or intelligence. Our realtionships with people can be a mirror of the God-person relationship.

No, we don’t agree. I do not respect my child’s “free will” of allowing him to poke a wire into a live power outlet, precisely because I love him. The society does not respect the “free will” of a criminal when the criminal is incarcerated. And it is not respected, because society wishes to protect the other members.