The free will argument demonstrates that christians don't understand free will.

[MindForgedManacle]

Not quite Esq. Theists (or at least Christian and Muslim theists) say that the reason God had to allow for evil was because unless one can legitimately choose to do good, it is not moral. Put more clearly, they're saying that if one's actions are determined, morality looses all meaning. Hence, if God wanted a universe with actual moral goodness in it, it must necessarily allow for the agents to choose to do evil too.

Two thoughts occur: one, the absence of good isn't evil, it's indifference, so even in a world without evil the choice to actively perform good actions would still exist. A world free of evil would still have those good works, but since the metric for heaven or hell is belief and not deeds anyway, I hardly see why god is so interested in whether we choose to do good or evil in the first place.

I agree that the lack of good isn't evil. That is, however, a common belief amongst Abrahamic theists.

Anyway, I don't think you're quite right, and slightly missed the point. For theists who use the Free Will Defense, the point is that without being capable of choosing to do immoral, there are no such thing as as moral actions, because then you're merely determined to do anything but immoral deeds because you're incapable of doing them.

As for why Abrahamic theists believe God is interested in whether or not we're moral, I can dust off my former Christian self's thoughts on this matter. :p Basically, we needed Jesus' execution and resurrection to redeem our sins, because we apparently weren't able to do so ourselves through animal sacrifices, so we needed the ultimate sacrifice of one who did no sin to atone for ours. That's the general theological stance as to why belief is central to salvation. However, there are some Biblical suggestions that accepting Christ as your Lord and savior are not all one must do, but that one must also repent for one's sins', and that good works are still expected of you (at least in terms of them giving credence to the idea that you are in fact saved).

Secondly, since it's the thought of sin that'll convict me and not the act, we're still left with a scenario in which god could prevent evil actions but not thoughts; he knows what we think anyway, and the only result of this system would be a net reduction of needless suffering.

Huh? I think you're referring to Jesus' statement that even contemplating sin is still sin, but Jesus does not say - as far as I remember - that such means that actually doing the act is not also a sin.

Which was sort of my point all along: your ability to freely choose one thing is most of the time not impacted by your ability or inability to choose the exact opposite.

For some reason I can't understand this. Man, I need a beer... :p


Lol, someone reading this thread might think I'm a Christian. xD

---

What's the difference between normal free will and moral free will? I always thought that morals was just the religious version of ethics.
Basically a watered down version of how to act humanely, but in a world where your watched 24 hrs a day by a big baby in the sky who never acts humanely.

He wasn't saying that there was a difference between 'regular' free will and moral free will, he was saying that one should not confuse free will with the ability to do absolutely anything.

Oh and I'm fairly certain ethics and morality mean the same thing.

If god knows the future, does he have free will?

Depends on what kind of free will you're talking about.

Where does all this information about heaven, hell and free will actually come from?
I've read the bible a few times and never seen fuckall on that stuff.

New Testament, bro.