Is there free will in heaven?

[The Grand Nudger]

This is the use of freewill, but the choice has not resulted in evil, nothing sinful happened, it is not a sin to ignore strangers, it is not a sin to refuse to obey people you do not trust

Go ahead and put "god" in place of "woman" in your analogy, and I agree completely. He fits your qualifiers, he's a stranger and I don't trust him. Nothing evil is happening in my life. Looks like I'm in the clear.

[Faith No More]

You see, we (believers) have waited our whole lives to see the kingdom of Jesus Christ, the place where he declares there will be peace, joy, love, forgiveness and righteousness.

This is why I have to feel sorry for you guys. You waste the one life you have waiting to get to a promise land that doesn't exist. The good news is you'll be dead so you won't be able to recognize how disappointed you'll be.

[toro]

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?

[tackattack]

That's what happens when faith is more important than good works.

Modern Christian majority is of the mind that works are a result of faith, not to be mutually exclusive but to ensure that humility comes during service.

---

@Rhythm
I appreciate the time you've dedicated to the conversation. I'm not aware of salty's claims, nor do I have the time to review what she has claimed and give my interpretation of it. I also have to say that I have real questions about the intent of any substance monist, especially one that doesn’t believe in free will, would have any comment in this thread at all. Firstly I’ll address assumptions, then the other points:
1) The assumptions here are not complex. The topic is “Is there free will in Heaven?” That assumes, for this discussion , that there is a Heaven, there is free will and by default I assume the Christian flavor. That further assumes that the Christian concept of a soul would exist in Heaven. I stopped there because those are the parameters of this discussion. If you can’t accept the parameters of the question as a possibility, then I don’t know why you’re even discussing it.
2) Fixed nature- I am a substance dualist. I believe we are more than the sum of our biological processes. I also happen to have a Religious belief that defines what that extra is. These aren’t the topics of this conversation, but I’m happy to discuss them with you elsewhere.
3) I’m agnostic on most topics, so I don’t believe in truth as a realistic or achievable goal, especially in the realm of the immaterial. In that realm logically consistent and indicative, even if just subjectively, would be sufficient for possible or personal truth.
4) You asked for a study that showed free will. I listed the first one I had reviewed. It shows free will is logically possible and indicative. I did that because you had a problem with free will, despite me asking you to define it (I’m fairly certain I did ask, or at least intended to). It’s a moot point because free will is covered by the assumptions of the discussion.
5) If you would like me to or would like to we can continue the discussion, but I feel this is a good place to set some definitions. Define a soul, define Heaven, define free will, and define a soul. That seems like a good place to get a more structured conversation going, if you’re interested still.

1- I can accept the parameters as a possibility but before we wax on too deeply about any of it it would be nice to establish that these things actually exist outside of this discussion as well.

2-So what would be the situation between us then? Is it you or I that argues for a fixed nature? On what basis do you make your claims, as I've explained the source for my own (observation of human beings and their behavior, without invoking the supernatural or arbitrary definitions of "our nature") If we have a fixed nature of any sort that would be verifiable wouldn't it? That's a claim that can be falsified, which I like. (if you feel that this topic deserves it's own thread by all means do so, it would be a welcome relief from the carefully crafted nonsense we usually get)

3-"Personal truth" sounds entirely too permissive to have the word "truth" attached to it. Anything at all can be a personal truth. The guy who wears tinfoil hats and built himself an alien survival bunker is working on a "personal truth". It's unsatisfying to me, but to each his own. What immaterial realm are you even referring to here? How can one be agnostic and then give us a rundown of an "immaterial realm"? The amount of knowledge you would have to possess to have a meaningful conversation about this would be staggering. You're proposing a shadow world, that somehow mimics our own and is overlaying or underlaying to our own, that interacts somehow with our own. If souls can see, why do we need eyes? If souls can hear or sing praise, why do we need a mouth or ears? If souls are the seat of consciousness then why do we need our brains, or any of our biological machinery? I think these concepts are much more elaborate than you've presented them as. Those are the staggering amounts of assumptions I'm talking about.

4-Right, but those aren't my assumptions. You know the old saying about assumptions. I'd like to see things demonstrated before I give any weight to a claim (or at least be assured that they could be demonstrated were I so inclined). Again, free will may be logically possible if the variables in the argument are correct, the premise and assumptions. But are they?

5-This is the core of my objection. I could define "snartleblartfest" but that doesn't make it any more real or plausible as an actual thing. Not everything that we've dreamt up exists in reality. A question was asked as to whether or not there is free will in heaven(I understand the op was willing to go down the rabbit hole by those assumptions). However, after so many answers from deists, theists, atheists etc I want to see the meat in this sandwich. Is there any? In any case, my definitions for these things should be apparent. Nonexistent relics of human superstition born out of ignorance and commendable amounts of imagination. Is this definition suitable to you? Because that's what these things appear to be from every observation we've been able to make on the subject. If it isn't suitable, why not?

(edited to for niceness)

---

1) It would, but that would be another conversation for a new thread. I barely have time for waxing philosophical as it is, so for now, I’d like to keep it within the bounds of this conversation if that’s acceptable. We can save the other for a rainy day.
2) I’m a material dualist so I claim that there’s more than biological fixed nature. From what I gather you’re a substance monist and believe that we are only the sum of our biological parts correct?
3) I don’t have any objective evidence that doesn’t contain personal perspective for the immaterial. We can continue with indicative subjective evidence and have the results be as anecdotal as the holder of the subjectivity or you can ask for objective and material evidence for the immaterial.
4) This train is beginning to circle. I believe there is free will in heaven. Yes I have lots of underlying assertions. We can continue to obfuscate, create another discussion for the underlying assertions, or deal with things at this surface level and get back to the underlying assertions at another time, your choice.
5) So you define Heaven as - Nonexistent relics of human superstition born out of ignorance and commendable amounts of imagination.
Free will as Nonexistent relics of human superstition born out of ignorance and commendable amounts of imagination.
A soul as Nonexistent relics of human superstition born out of ignorance and commendable amounts of imagination.

If that’s as far as you can stretch for the purposes for this conversation, you’re obviously not interested in anyone’s perspective but your own and this train has went full circle.

While I appreciate the editing for niceness, I’d rather you start a dialogue.

---

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?

---

As your post seems structured and open to conversation I'll address your post as soon as I get some sleep.

[The Grand Nudger]

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)?

[thesummerqueen]

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

[Epimethean]

Hunh, and I always thought good was what was necessary to do good.

[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.

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL, no, I don't want to quibble. I want you to substantiate the answer you gave because I don't feel that it has any value or merit if this can't be done. It's a non-answer. A platitude.

[thesummerqueen]

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.

Kinda makes me suspicious, Tack.