What is the point of free will?

[Vico]

I guess, you don’t get it. You cannot assume that certain things are the “work” of God (on the basis of his works), and then turn around and assert that these things prove God’s existence. That is called “circular reasoning”, a major no-no in logic. The phrase “natural reason” excludes any kind of “faith” or “revelation”.

The statement is that “By natural reason man can* know* God” not that God exists.

 

[tonyrey]

On the contrary, a crime can be committed with evil intent without doing anything. There is such a thing as culpable negligence.

Inaction is **lack **of action.

I have stated several times that free will is the power to choose what to think, how to act and who to love.

Without having at least two options (second requirement of the libertarian free will) there can be no choice. All those imply physical actions.

Not at all. Thinking, choosing and loving need not entail any physical activity. Even a totally paralysed person can be mentally active.

1. Our free will is more important than anything else.1) That is your personal opinion, nothing more. For the victim of a gang-rape the “freedom” of the rapists is NOT “valuable”.
   *An opinion doesn’t alter a fact.

1. Our power to make an evil decision is further evidence that we have free will.

1. Not really. Those “evil” decisions might be predetermined.

If decisions are predetermined they cannot be evil in the full sense of the term because the person is not responsible for them.

1. Otherwise morality wouldn’t make sense

.

1. Morality is an undefined term.

Morality is clearly defined as the difference between good and ecil, right and wrong, just and unjust.
Otherwise your statement 'For the victim of a gang-rape the “freedom” of the rapists is NOT “valuable” ’ would be meaningless.

You are obviously unacquainted with baptism of desire…

I am aware the concept. But if an atheist performs good actions, it does NOT mean that he wishes to be “baptized” by “desire”. The church explicitly teaches that good works without the intent to serve God are worthless.

Only if one believes in God. The good works of a sincere atheist are worth far more than the the hypocritical prayers of a believer who does nothing for others.

Evil thoughts can harm ourselves and therefore those who love us or admire us.

Can or do? There is no evidence that having “bad thoughts” will cause “harm” to ourselves. Obviously the word “harm” for you has nothing to do with harm accepted by others.

Vices such as pride, envy, jealousy, laziness, anger, impatience, selfishness are all self-destructive because they make a person frustrated and unhappy.

You are obviously unaware that the Church teaches that our ultimate authority is our conscience.

Not really. The church teaches that ONLY a well-formed conscience is to be followed. And the conscience is ONLY well-formed, if it agrees with the church’s teachings. It sure looks like that I know MUCH more about the church’s teachings than you do.

People are not penalised if they don’t know or sincerely reject the Church’s teaching. We are not expected to be infallible but to do what we believe is right and just.

God can intervene but doesn’t do so on every occasion because it would defeat the purpose of giving us free will. He is consistent as well as omnipotent.

If someone does not interfere to prevent some genuinely evil action to happen, then he is exactly as guilty as the active party. INACTION IS ACTION!

It doesn’t make sense to say “INACTION IS ACTION”! What you mean is that it is the consequences as well as the intention as well as action or inaction that determine whether a person is innocent or guilty.

But you miss my point. I am not against “free will”, only against excessive free will.

But you haven’t explained how it can be morally restricted. That is the real problem…

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Inaction is **lack **of action.

That is only sophistry. Inaction can only happen vis-à-vis a certain event. If you do not interfere then you DO something else.

An opinion doesn’t alter a fact.

That is right. Your opinion that free will is “more important” than anything else has no merit. What is that “value” for the victim of a rape. In details, please…

Only if one believes in God. The good works of a sincere atheist are worth far more than the the hypocritical prayers of a believer who does nothing for others.

That is not what the church teaches. Active, stubborn, willful atheism is a mortal sin, no matter how well the atheist behaves. You really need to study what your church really says.

Vices such as pride, envy, jealousy, laziness, anger, impatience, selfishness are all self-destructive because they make a person frustrated and unhappy.

Not necessarily, but even if they did, it is none of your business. Being destructive to others is the problem.

But you haven’t explained how it can be morally restricted. That is the real problem…

Of course I did. Many times. But since you STILL don’t get it, here is one more time.

1. God can do whatever he wants, except creating logically contradictory states of affairs.
2. God knows with absolute certainty what each human WOULD do IF he would be created.
3. Creating ONLY well-meaning people, who would not do harm to others is logically possible.

Conclusion: God could create only good people who would never hurt others… And voila, here is the world without rapes, murders and other assorted bad things. There is no need to “interfere”, because evil actions are not even contemplated. You might call it “utopia”, but that is fine. Allegedly in heaven we shall not want to perform “evil” acts. Some say that there will be “free will” in heaven, others deny this. It does not matter. Having a world without “morally evil” is logically possible, therefore God could create it.

Obviously he did not. There are several possible explanations. One is that there is no God. Two is that God enjoys our suffering. Three is that he would like to eliminate evil, but he is powerless to do it. The good old Euthyphro dilemma raises its ugly head and eliminates the “God is loving” assumption. Whatever God is (if he exists at all), he is not a loving, benevolent being who keeps our best interest in his heart.

 

[Vico]

… Whatever God is (if he exists at all), he is not a loving, benevolent being who keeps our best interest in his heart.

How can* you *say that creating humans with free will is not in the best interest of all beings created, even though some will choose malice not love?

 

[Marvin_parv]

If you think you have it, who BUYS it . . : )

 

[tonyrey]

Inaction is lack of action.
That is only sophistry. Inaction can only happen vis-à-vis a certain event. If you do not interfere then you DO something else.
It sounds like to say “If you do not interfere then you DO something else.”

You are confusing physical activity with mental activity. If you don’t act you permit or condone but you don’t take action to hinder or prevent.

An opinion doesn’t alter a fact.

That is right. Your opinion that free will is “more important” than anything else has no merit. What is that “value” for the victim of a rape. In details, please…

Many people have chosen to die rather be slaves incapable of exercising their free will. Which would you prefer?

Only if one believes in God. The good works of a sincere atheist are worth far more than the the hypocritical prayers of a believer who does nothing for others.

That is not what the church teaches. Active, stubborn, willful atheism is a mortal sin, no matter how well the atheist behaves. You really need to study what your church really says.

Your personal comment is not only discourteous but false. You have ignored the “sincere”…

Vices such as pride, envy, jealousy, laziness, anger, impatience, selfishness are all self-destructive because they make a person frustrated and unhappy.

Not necessarily, but even if they did, it is none of your business. Being destructive to others is the problem.

Yet another false, discourteous comment! Please explain how pride, envy, jealousy, laziness, anger, impatience selfishness make a person fulfilled and happy. If you have any compassion “it is your business” if others are frustrated and unhappy.

But you haven’t explained how it can be morally restricted.

That is the real problem…
Of course I did. Many times. But since you STILL don’t get it, here is one more time.

1. God can do whatever he wants, except creating logically contradictory states of affairs.
2. God knows with absolute certainty what each human WOULD do IF he would be created.
3. Creating ONLY well-meaning people, who would not do harm to others is logically possible.

“well-meaning” gives the game away! It is logically possible but it defeats the purpose of creating us free to choose what to believe how to live and who to love.

Conclusion: God could create only good people who would never hurt others… And voila, here is the world without rapes, murders and other assorted bad things. There is no need to “interfere”, because evil actions are not even contemplated. You might call it “utopia”, but that is fine. Allegedly in heaven we shall not want to perform “evil” acts. Some say that there will be “free will” in heaven, others deny this. It does not matter. Having a world without “morally evil” is logically possible, therefore God could create it.

Love is far more precious and significant than logic. Without free will we would be zombies.

Obviously he did not. There are several possible explanations. One is that there is no God. Two is that God enjoys our suffering. Three is that he would like to eliminate evil, but he is powerless to do it. The good old Euthyphro dilemma raises its ugly head and eliminates the “God is loving” assumption. Whatever God is (if he exists at all), he is not a loving, benevolent being who keeps our best interest in his heart.

It is a false dilemma because it is based on the false assumption that suffering is the worst of all evils. John Stuart Mill pointed out:

It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is only because they only know their own side of the question.

• Utilitarianism

 

[Pallas_Athene]

How can* you *say that creating humans with free will is not in the best interest of all beings created, even though some will choose malice not love?

Please explain how is being raped, tortured and murdered is in the best interest of the victim. Why is NOT being raped, tortured and murdered is “better” for the victim? Please be specific.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Many people have chosen to die rather be slaves incapable of exercising their free will. Which would you prefer?

You keep evading… as usual. How many people (children and adults) did CHOOSE to be raped, tortured and slaughtered in the name of “free will” of the attackers? I can give you the precise number: zero, zilch, none… No one supports the “free will” of the murderers, except a few nincompoops, who never had to endure the agony at the hand of psychopaths. Of course it is very easy to “heroically” endure the pain, agony and suffering of OTHERS. But as soon as they are on the receiving end of the torture, they will scream against the “freedom” of the psychopaths.

You have ignored the “sincere”…

It is included by default, and it is not relevant. No matter how sincere an atheist is in the LACK of his belief, the catechism explicitly states that “if you heard of God and still refuse to believe him you are willfully ignorant” and as such you live in mortal sin. Yes, I said that you are ignorant of the teachings of your church. If you think that this is “discourteous”, let me remind you: “if you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen”.

Please explain how pride, envy, jealousy, laziness, anger, impatience selfishness make a person fulfilled and happy.

As the old saying goes: “large is the zoo of God, and it takes all kinds…”.

“well-meaning” gives the game away! It is logically possible but it defeats the purpose of creating us free to choose what to believe how to live and who to love.

Nope, it does not. But that is obviously way over your head.

Love is far more precious and significant than logic.

Where is that “LOVE” in permitting rapes, tortures and murders???

Without free will we would be zombies.

I believe you will get upset about this: but you are obviously very dumb. I (and others) have repeated many times that “free will” does not need to be eliminated, only limited. Now I can predict: you will display “righteous indignation” over the phrase “dumb”, and on that pretext you will NOT answer the question: “where is the love in permitting rapes, tortures and murders”?

It is a false dilemma because it is based on the false assumption that suffering is the worst of all evils.

What else is there? Do you ever choose to suffer?

 

[Vico]

Please explain how is being raped, tortured and murdered is in the best interest of the victim. Why is NOT being raped, tortured and murdered is “better” for the victim? Please be specific.

I asked you how you know. You do not answer? Pleas answer.

The everlasting happiness in heaven requires our cooperation with the grace of God and suffering in this life. Any suffering that beings destined for greatness experience, are temporary, and may demonstrate our love of God.

Baltimore Catechism3. Why did God make us?

  God made us to show forth His goodness and to share with us His everlasting happiness in heaven.

  *Eye has not seen nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the  heart of man, what things God has prepared for those who love him. (I  Corinthians 2:9)*

4. What must we do to gain the happiness of heaven?

  To gain the happiness of heaven we must know, love, and serve God in this world.

  *Lay not up to yourselves treasures on earth; where the rust and  moth consume and where thieves break through and steal. But lay up to  yourselves treasures in heaven; where neither the rust nor moth doth  consume, and where thieves do not break through nor steal. (Matthew  6:19-20)*

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Your original question was:

How can you say that creating humans with free will is not in the best interest of all beings created, even though some will choose malice not love?

(Emphasis mine.) The answer is: “I don’t know”. That is why I asked you to show me how is it in the best interest of the victims to be raped, tortured and murdered. And you did not answer. I asked it from tony. too. He did not answer either. I asked from others as well. They did not answer either. So I keep asking again, until I get a reply:
How is it in the best interest of the VICTIM to be raped, tortured and murdered??

The everlasting happiness in heaven requires our cooperation with the grace of God and suffering in this life.

Nonsense. Does the “grace of God” include and require rapes, tortures and murders?

Any suffering that beings destined for greatness experience, are temporary, and may demonstrate our love of God.

Why is suffering needed to demonstrate our “love” for God? And how does the suffering “demonstrate” God’s love for us?

 

[Vico]

Your original question was:

(Emphasis mine.) The answer is: “I don’t know”. That is why I asked you to show me how is it in the best interest of the victims to be raped, tortured and murdered. And you did not answer. I asked it from tony. too. He did not answer either. I asked from others as well. They did not answer either. So I keep asking again, until I get a reply:How is it in the best interest of the VICTIM to be raped, tortured and murdered??Nonsense. Does the “grace of God” include and require rapes, tortures and murders?

Why is suffering needed to demonstrate our “love” for God? And how does the suffering “demonstrate” God’s love for us?

Suffering is part of this life.

Mark 10
29 Jesus answering, said: Amen I say to you, there is no man who hath left house or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or children, or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, 30 Who shall not receive an hundred times as much, now in this time; houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions: and in the world to come life everlasting.
Jesus Heals the Man Born Blind
John 9

1 AND Jesus passing by, saw a man, who was blind from his birth: 2 And his disciples asked him: Rabbi, who hath sinned, this man, or his parents, that he should be born blind? **3 **Jesus answered: Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents; but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. **4 **I must work the works of him that sent me, whilst it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work. 5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.
Without free will there cannot be expression of love. Love is opposed by malice which also a choice. This means that love and malice are relative and both must be possible for the other.

God’s love takes the form of eternal happiness for those that love Him.

 

[tonyrey]

Many people have chosen to die rather be slaves incapable of exercising their free will. Which would you prefer?

Unsupported assertion which fails to answer the question. (People often accuse others of their own faults and defects.)

How many people (children and adults) did CHOOSE to be raped, tortured and slaughtered in the name of “free will” of the attackers? I can give you the precise number: zero, zilch, none… No one supports the “free will” of the murderers, except a few nincompoops, who never had to endure the agony at the hand of psychopaths. Of course it is very easy to “heroically” endure the pain, agony and suffering of OTHERS. But as soon as they are on the receiving end of the torture, they will scream against the “freedom” of the psychopaths.

Taken to its logical extreme your question implies that everyone should be prevented from exercising their free will in case they decide to torture and murder others! Of course you provide no explanation of the means by which such a measure could be implemented. Please explain how it could be achieved without putting the whole world in prison and throwing away the keys to every cell! That everyone would soon die from hunger and thirst is, of course, an insignificant minor detail because your demand would be fulfilled…

You have ignored the “sincere”…

It is included by default, and it is not relevant.

Why assume all atheists are sincere? Do you have any reason?

No matter how sincere an atheist is in the LACK of his belief, the catechism explicitly states that “if you heard of God and still refuse to believe him you are willfully ignorant” and as such you live in mortal sin.

Please give a reference to that text and its context.

Yes, I said that you are ignorant of the teachings of your church. If you think that this is “discourteous”, let me remind you: “if you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen”.

Provide specific evidence of your assertion.

Please explain how pride, envy, jealousy, laziness, anger, impatience selfishness make a person fulfilled and happy.

As the old saying goes: “large is the zoo of God, and it takes all kinds…”.

That is not an explanation - nor is it a saying with which I am familiar.
The only reference to it in Google is your post which hardly justifies your claim that it is “old” - unless you have lived many years on this earth…

“well-meaning” gives the game away! It is logically possible but it defeats the

purpose of creating us free to choose what to believe how to live and who to love.

Nope, it does not. But that is obviously way over your head.

Unsupported assertions are worthless and in this case it is both an ad hominem and also a violation of the forum rule of courtesy.

Love is far more precious and significant than logic.

Where is that “LOVE” in permitting rapes, tortures and murders???

Love is not a material object located in a particular place. Like truth, goodness, freedom, justice, equality and integrity it transcends time and space. It cannot be reduced to a collocation of atomic particles as you seem to believe…

Without free will we would be zombies.

I believe you will get upset about this: but you are obviously very dumb.

Your addiction to abuse, ad hominems and violations of the forum rule of courtesy is clearly visible to any impartial observer…

I (and others) have repeated many times that “free will” does not need to be eliminated, only limited.

You have often been asked to explain the precise means by which free will can be limited but you have never even attempted to do so.

Now I can predict: you will display “righteous indignation” over the phrase “dumb”, and on that pretext you will NOT answer the question: “where is the love in permitting rapes, tortures and murders”?

Your false assumption has already been refuted by a simple statement: “Without free will we would be incapable of love”. The creation of persons with free will is irrefutable evidence of supernatural love - unless you reduce love to a human invention (which seems quite likely because it corresponds to your belief that we are merely naked apes).

It is a false dilemma because it is based on the false assumption that suffering is the worst of all evils.

What else is there? Do you ever choose to suffer?

Only egoists and hedonists never choose to suffer because they prefer to take the easy way out and never sacrifice themselves for the benefit of others.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Suffering is part of this life.

But it does NOT HAVE to be. And my question was specific: how is it in the best interest of Jane Doe to have been kidnapped, raped, tortured and murdered? What did SHE, personally gain from this event? Please be specific.

Without free will there cannot be expression of love. Love is opposed by malice which also a choice. This means that love and malice are relative and both must be possible for the other.

Nonsense. There are levels of freedom. There is no need for excessive “freedom”.

God’s love takes the form of eternal happiness for those that love Him.

That “love” is not detectable by us, here and now. What is detectable is the incredible level of indifference.

 

[Vico]

But it does NOT HAVE to be. And my question was specific: how is it in the best interest of Jane Doe to have been kidnapped, raped, tortured and murdered? What did SHE, personally gain from this event? Please be specific.

Nonsense. There are levels of freedom. There is no need for excessive “freedom”.

That “love” is not detectable by us, here and now. What is detectable is the incredible level of indifference.

“Jane Doe” receives existence and actual grace from God, and the potential to be an adopted son of God. Specific experiences of others doing harm are due to the free will choice which God gives humans. The benefit to all, including “Jane Doe” is in having free will choice. Merit in the eternal life may be achieved through enduring suffering. The love we experience is in the grace given to us, through which we may remain without sin. That is not indifference.

For some, it seems, material benefits are what are valued. We do know that Jesus taught us not to be attached to worldly things. Matthew 19:24 “Again I (Jesus) tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”

 

[Pallas_Athene]

The benefit to all, including “Jane Doe” is in having free will choice.

You still did not explain how the rape, torture and murder of Jane Doe is in HER BEST INTEREST? Even if her suffering is just temporary, it is not negligible.

Merit in the eternal life may be achieved through enduring suffering.

I don’t care about “MAY”. Is the suffering LOGICALLY necessary for that eternal life? Only the ones who suffer can enter into that eternal life? If achieving that eternal life is possible WITHOUT that suffering, then allowing unnecessary, gratuitous suffering is evil.

For some, it seems, material benefits are what are valued.

Even if material benefits are not all-encompassing, they are not irrelevant either.

 

[Vico]

You still did not explain how the rape, torture and murder of Jane Doe is in HER BEST INTEREST? Even if her suffering is just temporary, it is not negligible.

I don’t care about “MAY”. Is the suffering LOGICALLY necessary for that eternal life? Only the ones who suffer can enter into that eternal life? If achieving that eternal life is possible WITHOUT that suffering, then allowing unnecessary, gratuitous suffering is evil.

Even if material benefits are not all-encompassing, they are not irrelevant either.

All humans have life after death, but with different dispositions. I stated may, because with free will, a person may choose malice and therefore will not enter heaven but hell. Eternal life in heaven or hell (sometimes called eternal death) is logically impossible without suffering since all human living involves suffering. Good and evil, love and malice, heaven and hell, are relatives; there cannot be a heaven without a hell.

It is in any persons best interest to have the opportunity of the beatific vision, regardless of the degree of suffering in this life.

Catechism 385 (excerpt)God is infinitely good and all his works are good. Yet no one can escape the experience of suffering or the evils in nature which seem to be linked to the limitations proper to creatures: and above all to the question of moral evil.

 

[davidv]

You still did not explain how the rape, torture and murder of Jane Doe is in HER BEST INTEREST? Even if her suffering is just temporary, it is not negligible.

It is not likely in her best interest. So? The rapist chose to misuse his free will. Why didn’t he keep her best interest in mind?

I don’t care about “MAY”. Is the suffering LOGICALLY necessary for that eternal life? Only the ones who suffer can enter into that eternal life? If achieving that eternal life is possible WITHOUT that suffering, then allowing unnecessary, gratuitous suffering is evil.

Even if material benefits are not all-encompassing, they are not irrelevant either.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

It is not likely in her best interest. So?

Not likely? The understatement of the year.

To be exposed to pain and suffering is NOT inherently “evil”. We (humans) are not omnipotent or omniscient. So for us it is possible that even employing the best possible means and acting as benevolently as we can we must still cause some lesser pain and suffering. There is no problem with that. But it is logically necessary to cause as little pain and suffering as possible, while achieving that greater good. To cause or allow ANY amount of pain and suffering which is unnecessary (gratuitous) is evil.

Are you with me?

If yes, then we can continue. The point is that God is not limited, unlike us. He can create a state of affairs, without afflicting any pain or suffering, just by snapping his imaginary fingers.

Now some people argue (incorrectly, of course) that NEARLY unbridled free will is “valuable” per se. My question is: “to whom”? Not for the victim. Not for the relatives and friends of the victim. Not for the people who know about the attack… For WHOM is it valuable? For the psychopath who committed the act? Why should we respect the “free will” of a psychopath? Should we get rid of the police and the judicial system to allow the psychopath even MORE freedom?

Both the “free will defense” and the “greater good defense” are logically incorrect. There is no defense for causing and allowing unnecessary pain and suffering.

Some nincompoops will ask: “how do you know that certain pain and suffering” are unnecessary? The answer is obvious. God’s omnipotence is only limited by logically impossible states of affairs. It is logically possible to perform a “selective creation”. God is also supposed to know how will a certain person behave in any and all circumstances, IF he were created. So God could “bypass” the creation of those people who would perform evil acts, IF created.

That puts the full responsibility for ALL the evil acts onto God’s shoulders (if he existed and had any shoulders).

You can’t hide behind: “why should God be responsible for the evil”? Why not the humans? Because we are NOT omniscient and NOT omnipotent. Of course, if someone KNOWS about an impending evil (terrorist) action, and he is able to prevent it, and stays inactive, then obviously that person is held responsible.

But this is very rare. If God existed, and he had a desk, on that desk there would be famous sign: “The buck stops HERE!”.

The rapist chose to misuse his free will. Why didn’t he keep her best interest in mind?

Read this and weep: infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/five.html A nice summary (in very ironic form) of the idiotic “defenses” presented by SOME people.

 

[tonyrey]

How is it in the best interest of the VICTIM to be raped, tortured and murdered??

It is in everyone’s best interest that we have the power to choose what to believe, how to live and who to love. It was an atheist, Jean Paul Sartre, who pointed out that we are not persons if we lack freedom.

 

[rIz0]

Free will entails suffering when the domain of discourse is not limited (qualifying omnipotence is limiting it) and is extended (logically) in such a way so as to permit ontological categories of things (us) in existence to perform the duties intendant upon exhausting all that free will as a concept entails in principle. Two areas of philosophical thought overlap in your argument (and you address only one–logic). Your inability to make maintain consistency respect to both is the reason for your faulty logic (a third domain which governs the semantic nature of this discussion). Logically speaking your argument is valid; it is not however impermeable to attack. Syllogism is a reliable friend of the logician but when the terms are undefinable (as when one defines the terms themselves) it makes matters less clear. For instance, my friend, what is it that governs your constitution when discerning which acts are perceived evil or not (I’d like a thorough account too)? We need to have a much more thorough discussion if we are to arrive at any solution to your proposed problem (not one that is revelatory btw…I know you had hoped it was). So, no… the buck does not stop here. And you have done little to add anything to the ‘real’ conversation. And there is a syllogistically (inferentially valid) sound defense of free will which allows for the causation of pain and suffering that is consistent with the existence of a benevolent and omnipotent being. Don’t take pride in being semantically correct( that is easy) it muddies the water and makes clear what your true intentions are. Good effort though. Hope you respond.