God & Free Will

[Chris]

In this video Brett Palmer gives an argument I've never heard before. It's very interesting. Have a listen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1cRIVva ... el&list=UL

Oh and all of you [especially you Rufus] should check out the vids by "The Living Dinosaur".

[E-lad]

Our evil nature is what caused the child to starve, the Wild Fundie^(TM) would say.

But the concept of God creating an entity that has choices that he does not have is intriguing.

[Chris]

Our evil nature is what caused the child to starve, the Wild Fundie^(TM) would say.

But the concept of God creating an entity that has choices that he does not have is intriguing.

I thought so. And if God can't commit evil yet is considered to have free will why couldn't we have been created with the same limitation. I gotta admit that is one hell of an argument.

[E-lad]

Our evil nature is what caused the child to starve, the Wild Fundie^(TM) would say.

But the concept of God creating an entity that has choices that he does not have is intriguing.

I thought so. And if God can't commit evil yet is considered to have free will why couldn't we have been created with the same limitation. I gotta admit that is one hell of an argument.

It does indeed inspire some cogitation......thanks Chris!

[lehman scott]

That was outstanding, Chris, thanks!

[pUREiNTENT]

This is a shallow argument. God is not a robot because He maintains His free will despite not being able to choose evil. Just because His very nature causes Him to choose good (actually He is good manifest), doesn't diminish His free will .

See the example.

Mark wears a shock collar which shocks only for choice B, but not for choice A. Let us say A is good, B is evil. When Mark wants to think evil thoughts, his shock collar fires and he is immediately steered toward thoughts of good. Admittedly his choice is not free as the shock collar is preventing free choice.

However, if Mark simply wanted to choose good and had no inclination to choose evil, the shock collar would never fire, Mark would never be shocked, and his choice for A (good) would be of his on volition and not caused by outside forces. Therefore his free will is maintained despite having no inclination toward evil and no possibility of ever choosing evil.

Another way to look at it is this. If I am given a choice between wet manure and a piece of pumpkin pie... I will choose pumpkin pie every time. You might even say that I cannot choose wet manure because my very nature finds it disgusting and it repels me and makes me throw up. That does not mean I do not have free will to pick which I want to eat as I am not forced to pick pumpkin pie, I just will... it is in my nature.

This conception of libertarian freedom has the advantage of explaining how it is that God’s choosing to do good is free, even though it is impossible for God to choose sin, namely, His choosing is undetermined by causal constraints. Thus, libertarian freedom of the will does not require the ability to choose other than as one chooses.

[shadowmouse]

This is a shallow argument. God is not a robot because He maintains His free will despite not being able to choose evil. Just because His very nature causes Him to choose good (actually He is good manifest), doesn't diminish His free will .

See the example.

Mark wears a shock collar which shocks only for choice B, but not for choice A. Let us say A is good, B is evil. When Mark wants to think evil thoughts, his shock collar fires and he is immediately steered toward thoughts of good. Admittedly his choice is not free as the shock collar is preventing free choice.

However, if Mark simply wanted to choose good and had no inclination to choose evil, the shock collar would never fire, Mark would never be shocked, and his choice for A (good) would be of his on volition and not caused by outside forces. Therefore his free will is maintained despite having no inclination toward evil and no possibility of ever choosing evil.

Another way to look at it is this. If I am given a choice between wet manure and a piece of pumpkin pie... I will choose pumpkin pie every time. You might even say that I cannot choose wet manure because my very nature finds it disgusting and it repels me and makes me throw up. That does not mean I do not have free will to pick which I want to eat as I am not forced to pick pumpkin pie, I just will... it is in my nature.

This conception of libertarian freedom has the advantage of explaining how it is that God’s choosing to do good is free, even though it is impossible for God to choose sin, namely, His choosing is undetermined by causal constraints. Thus, libertarian freedom of the will does not require the ability to choose other than as one chooses.

Standard tossed word salad.

[E-lad]

Pi, you would need to prove there actually is a God before charging into this theological tripe. You seem to be trying to explain the nature of a non existent supernatural being for which no human could ever even think of doing if, in fact, it was a factual being.
And that is what is so hilarious about the whole matter. If there were an omniscient/ omnipotent supernatural being, do you really think that a human would be able to explain it's nature? Especially while theologians have been arguing about the matter since time immemorial?
Right. I thought so.

[IntellectualNinja]

This is a shallow argument. God is not a robot because He maintains His free will despite not being able to choose evil. Just because His very nature causes Him to choose good (actually He is good manifest), doesn't diminish His free will .

I agree with you 100%. You make a wonderful argument. The only issue I can think of is that it isn't really what the video's presenter was arguing.

Let's assume that God chooses only to do good. It's not part of God's nature to do evil. I would argue that God would never do evil by proxy either. In other words, God would not make minions to do His dirty work for Him. Evil is just not in his nature nor would it be part of his creations.

However, humans can do evil, or so we think we can. God could have given us free will and created the universe in such a way that all our choices result in net positives. However, God's universe allows us to perform evil. God is in essence doing evil through us. We are acting like God's proxy for evil. Our ability to do evil and the ability for the universe to allow evil goes against God's nature.

Now the most interesting solution brought forth by the video presenter is that all the suffering and "evil" in the world is actually good. So all the murderers, anti-feminists, and bigots of the world are doing God's good work.

That's very interesting to think about.

[Chris]

This is a shallow argument. God is not a robot because He maintains His free will despite not being able to choose evil. Just because His very nature causes Him to choose good (actually He is good manifest), doesn't diminish His free will .

And God could have created us to have exactly the same ability. I'm sorry but if God is conceived of as omnipotent then He has the power to create us anyway He chooses.
Even if we define omnipotence as 'being able to do anything which is logically possible' then since God can always choose the good but not be a robot then such behaviour cannot be illogical and we could have been created with the same ability.

It would seem to me that the only way out is to suggest that God is NOT omnipotent.