Is there free will in heaven?

[tackattack]

---

I'm stepping into this discussion late, and while I've read about a third of it, if I'm reiterating existant points, let me know please.

The issue I have with free-will in heaven is this would seem to make the concept of heaven either non-sensical or pointless.


Let us assume first that heaven and hell exist (topic of discussion). Let us also assume that when people go to hell, they remain there for eternity. Here, eternity literally means forever, or infinity in time.

so...

1. If people have free-will in heaven, then people can act as they wish and do as they wish.
1.a. If they can interact with others, this means potentially people can sin against others if they desire.
1.b. If they can't interact with others, then they can sin against made-up people if they desire.
1.c. While a person may be able to want to do something bad, they are not allowed to.

2. If there is free will, this allows the possibility to act against God.
2.a. When a person acts against God's will, they are sent to hell for eternity.
2.b. When a person acts against God's will, they can apologize and remain in heaven.

3. There is no free-will in heaven.

This presents several odd results.

1.a
In the case of 2.a, this means a person may hurt another, then be sent to hell for eternity. Given that the afterlife continues for eternity, the possibile opportunities for sin grow with time and the probability that an individual will go to hell approaches 100%. This results, as time gows to infinity, in all individuals going to hell. This makes life and heaven little more than a temporary break from the punishment God will to enact on everyone. Furthermore, there is little difference as time goes to infinity in going to heaven and not going to heaven as the relative time spent not being punished goes to zero. It would therefore then also seem that God wants everyone to go to hell.

In the case of 2.b, this means people remain with other people after doing them harm. This gives heaven little conceptual difference from Earth in that it allows continual violence between people. However, battles may continue with people constantly doing harm but feeling no pain.

1.b
In the case of 2.a, this is the same as above. A person may break the laws of God, only with imaginiary people.
In the case of 2.b, this would seem to mean that the rules God asks people to abide by are meaningless. They are not based on morality, but are simply arbitrary guidelines he doesn't care about and it is alright to break them later, just not now. This would also indicate that heaven is little more than a giant video game, and we don't actually interact with our loved ones.

1.c
In this case, free-will is rather meaningless and heaven is little more than sitting around thinking to oneself.

3.

In this case, heaven consists of not being the individuals we are and simply being forced to do what God wants us to do. This sort of seems to defeat the purpose of going through existence in the first place.



As a humourous but somewhat serious side-note. 1.a/2.a actually would seem to explain why God doesn't bother to show himself to anyone. They all end up going to hell anyway.

Thoughts?

---

Even though those assumptions are not in line with my Christian beliefs I can accept them for this conversation.
Premise:
1a. & 1b. – I see no problem with that thus far
1c. There has not been put in, any controlling assumptions about limiting that free will by “not allowing” something. Free will wouldn’t then be free.

2a. – I see no problem with that so far
2b.- There has been no established assumption for repentance at this juncture. If you’re going off of the standard Christian presupposition, judgement day would be the last time available for forgiveness of sin. I’ll go along with it since it hasn’t been established yet.

Results:

1a|2a : You’re assuming that there is no possibility of ever overcoming sinful nature, when by definition it is the qualification for entrance to Heaven.
1a|2b: Feeling pain wasn’t established in the assumptions. Major flaw with 2b is that re-admittance to heaven was not qualified. For an Annihilationist like myself this holds a load of issues, but noting the 2 exceptions or faults with the premise that would be sound logic.

1b|2a: same above
1b|2b: One would think that the intent of the law would still be upheld, especially since there is no interaction between subjects in Heaven. So it’s less about its effects on others in this scenario and more about the intent to sin.
1c: As I stated, free will without freedom to act isn’t free. See 3 below, only wa can talk and interact possibly.
3: We could be Heaven’s lawn gnomes in that scenario ? interesting concept.

---

I don't "believe" anything Tack. I defer to what we can observe, demonstrate, and (in theory) falsify. This is the beginning of a dialogue. If you can't provide anything in support of your claims than who is stalling the dialogue? Is it impossible for you to have a conversation about this unless one simply accepts all of your assumptions at face value? You make claims, and then when asked to substantiate them you state that this is an attempt to obfuscate or derail a thread? I agree, by you, because you seem to have nothing to provide as evidence. The notion that these things, as described by religious tradition, are relics of superstition isn't my position, it's the position of demonstrable evidence. Why on earth would I accept your opinions over demonstrable evidence? Again, if I'm going to allow opinions to occupy the same realm as demonstrable evidence, why should they be your opinions as opposed to Salty's (or anyone else of any faith dead or alive)?

---

Just come out and ask for observable, demonstrable, falsifiable and material scientific evidence for the immaterial so I can call a spade a spade and be done with this. That is the obfuscation you are doing. I accepted the original premise of the question at face value. I answered why it was logically and theologically possible to have free will in Heaven. I didn't feel the need to cite the Bible as I'm sure it's been done in this thread for the fall of the angels or is common knowledge of a theological stance.Then you want to quibble about the premise of the question I didn't even ask, just answered. If you want to discuss the individual assumptions of this question in a different thread, go ahead and start it up and pm me or link it, as that would be outside the premise of this thread. I get it, you're an atheist and have no belief in god/gods. I get it you're a substance monist and only believe in the material self. I get it you're an incompatible determinist and don't believe in free will. I get it, you're a materialist and only matter exists for you. So why do you feel the need to contribute to this topic at all?

So...you think that faith is required to do good?

No I think faith is necessary to do the good God wants you to do. You could do what you consider good as well without faith in anything but your own moral standard.