The Problem of Evil and the Free Will Defense

[DeistPaladin]

I think I'm getting less tolerant as I get older.

Or you've heard it all before.

[DeistPaladin]

on this post, I will take on a common argument made against theists (mainly Christians) and show what the free will defense is and how it successfully defends Christianity from these arguments.

What Cheerful Charlie said, your god Yahweh doesn't give a crap about "free will". Your god routinely "hardens the hearts" of people or "sends them a strong delusion" in the OT and the NT, manipulating them for his own ends.

Furthermore, far more passages of the Bible suggest the predestination of who is saved (i.e. "the elect") rather than free will. For example:

Romans 8:28-30 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

The Biblical world is largely a deterministic one, with Providence mapping out everything from beginning to end.

Christians really need to read their own Bible before spouting this philoso-babble.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Not exactly. People become more of what they are. The decisions you make on earth set your direction. The righteous in Heaven have good habits that only get better unto eternity. The wicked continue to get worse because that is the direction they have set for themselves, which is to increase their slavery to the obsessions and compulsions they loved during life. The righteous however are freed from these compulsions and have the liberty to rejoice in God's love and truth in whatever manner they choose.

And you know this how exactly?

The question was about doctrine that comes from revelation.

[Angrboda]

The problem with the free will defense of evil is that it completely negates the concept of Christian heaven, unless the Christian is willing to acknowledge that there is no free will there.

Not exactly. People become more of what they are. The decisions you make on earth set your direction. The righteous in Heaven have good habits that only get better unto eternity. The wicked continue to get worse because that is the direction they have set for themselves, which is to increase their slavery to the obsessions and compulsions they loved during life. The righteous however are freed from these compulsions and have the liberty to rejoice in God's love and truth in whatever manner they choose.

And you know this how exactly?

The question was about doctrine that comes from revelation.

Who received the revelation, from what was it received, and where is there documentation of their revelation? Whose doctrine is this and where is that documented?

(And if this is all something Swedenborg dreamed after eating a spicy meal, please say so.)

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

There's actually a pretty well-known thought experiment which demonstrate that God could create a world free from evil, without violating anyone's free will. Consider:

You have a planet with a stable population of 1000 individuals. Half of them will always freely choose evil acts, half will always freely choose good acts. Each day, God removes from this world one of the evil people. In 500 days, there will be no one left but people who freely choose good 100% of the time.

Going forward, God omnisciently knows which children born on this world will be good and which will be evil. God simply prevents the conception of those who will be evil. The population of the world will always consist of people who choose to never commit an evil act. The result is a world free from evil in which no one's free will has been violated.

Thus, assuming that God prefers good acts to evil ones, the free will defense doesn't get God of the hook. Since God COULD prevent moral evil simply by permitting only the existence of those people whom God knows beforehand will never, ever commit an evil act, God is responsible for moral evil. Remember, God isn't constraining people to act in a good manner, he isn't mucking about with free will - he is simply not allowing evil acts to be performed by making sure that people who perform them don't exist.

One could make a similar argument that God is equally culpable for natural evil.

Boru

[Neo-Scholastic]

The question was about doctrine that comes from revelation.

Who received the revelation, from what was it received, and where is there documentation of their revelation? Whose doctrine is this and where is that documented?

(And if this is all something Swedenborg dreamed after eating a spicy meal, please say so.)

FNM said that free will violated doctrine. I replied that New Church doctrine was not violated and presented a summary of the doctrine. Whether the doctrine was actually revealed or not was never the issue.

[Tonus]

You have a planet with a stable population of 1000 individuals. Half of them will always freely choose evil acts, half will always freely choose good acts. Each day, God removes from this world one of the evil people. In 500 days, there will be no one left but people who freely choose good 100% of the time.

I think it also depends on what god considers good and evil. In the creation account, Adam is given a single "do not." He is not to eat the fruit of one specific tree. What if on one lonely afternoon (when he still had all of his ribs) he decides to masturbate? Did he commit an evil act? What if he swore at a squirrel for dropping a nut on his head? Evil?

Once they'd started populating the planet, what if one of Adam's children started gathering firewood on the Sabbath? What's that? There wasn't a rule against it at that time? There isn't one today either, if you're a Christian. There was only this particular period of time where working on the Sabbath was such an evil act that it was punishable by death. But not anymore!

Where are these lines of "good" and "evil" drawn? Getting a tattoo-- evil? Good? None of the above? Smoking a cigarette? Smoking a joint? Getting tipsy? Coveting your neighbor's iPad? Is coveting still evil, or does it only matter if it leads to theft? Remember that lustful thoughts are just as bad as adultery! So maybe being jealous of your neighbor's car is theft in the eyes of god!

[Angrboda]

Who received the revelation, from what was it received, and where is there documentation of their revelation? Whose doctrine is this and where is that documented?

(And if this is all something Swedenborg dreamed after eating a spicy meal, please say so.)

FNM said that free will violated doctrine. I replied that New Church doctrine was not violated and presented a summary of the doctrine. Whether the doctrine was actually revealed or not was never the issue.

No, you did not reply that "New Church" doctrine was not violated. The complete lack of this information is what prompted my original question. It not having been an issue is not relevant as your claiming it was makes it an issue. And in the context of a discussion of theodicy, you better damn well believe whether or not it is revelation matters.

It's bullshit like this which is why I no longer have any respect for you and consider you a person without character or morals. (That, and you're a shamelessly partisan lick spittle, more interested in seeing your side "win" than you are in the truth.) Thanks for your honest and candid reply, "Christian."

[Dunno]

on this post, I will take on a common argument made against theists (mainly Christians) and show what the free will defense is and how it successfully defends Christianity from these arguments.
Purpose: I want to be clear this is not an argument against atheism or prove theism true. this is a free will defense and thus is only meant to defend Christianity from atheist arguments.
Argument:
to start, here is a common format of an argument against God using the problem of evil:
1. if God is omniscient, he knows that there is evil in the world and knows how to prevent it.
2. if God is omnipotent, he has the ability to prevent evil.
3. if God is morally perfect, he wouldn't want evil in the world.
4. there is evil in the world.
5. therefore, 1-3 can't all simultaneously be true of God since 4 is true.
6. 1-3 are in the necessary nature of God.
conclusion: therefore the God doesn't exist.

the key premise in this argument is 5, in that asserting God wouldn't allow evil if he had those three attributes. all the other premises are uncontroversial. in order for a theist to refute this argument, they must show premise 5 is not necessarily true. the best way, in my opinion, to refute this argument is with the free will defense. before I get into that, I must properly define what moral evil is. there are many opinions on what it is, but since this is an inside argument against God it seems most appropriate to use the biblical definition. moral evil is the deliberate disobedience against God and his commandments. this in mind, the free will defense states that though it's possible for God to create a world without evil, he could only do so by eliminating free will. I will attempt to formulate an argument from the free will defense:
1. moral evil is the deliberate act against God and his commandments.
2. humans have free will if and only if they are given options and they can pick any options they are given without God preventing them from picking them.
3. if people are given a free choice of doing evil or not doing evil, there will inevitably be those who will choose evil.
4. God can't change 3 without taking away 2.
conclusion: Therefore, God could not create creatures with free will and without evil.

Objections:
1. God is omnipotent, so he should be able to do anything. why can't he then create a world with free creatures who don't do evil?-- the idea of omnipotence has generally been accepted of being capable of doing anything logically possible, and thus excludes the logically impossible. so if the act of creating creatures incapable of evil takes away their free will, then God can't create free creatures incapable of evil.
2. the idea of a world where everyone freely chooses not to do evil doesn't seem logically absurd. therefore it is possible for God to create free creatures without evil, therefore your argument is invalid.-- though this may seem like a reasonable objection, it fails to consider a few things. we aren't talking about a single variable, but a multitude of variables. if you considered a single person, you could come up with a multitude of experiences he has that allow him to choose what is good every time. however, this is just a single person experiencing things by himself. when you have a bunch of people, they often base their decisions off other people's decisions. if they see someone's choice, they may choose something different just because they want to see the outcome. so in a nutshell, it may be possible for a single person to freely choose good every time but not a large group of people yet alone the amount we have in our world. people who are able to choose differently will choose differently.
2a. why is it necessarily true different people choose differently?-- this is by nature of the definition of individual. if they are truly individuals, then they all have different wills. if they all have different wills, then they will necessarily have different actions to reflect those wills. some would involve expressing that individuality, which is why no matter how stupid the choice there is inevitably going to be someone who chooses it. with the amount of individual wills, it would be impossible none of them never choose to do evil.
2b. but God can choose what circumstances we are faced with, and can ensure we are only faced with circumstances he knows we will do what's right if we're faced with it.-- even if this were possible for everyone collectively, it would defeat the whole purpose of free will. sure, it would still exist, but they're not truly picking good over evil. they're picking what they like vs what they don't like. and it doesn't change the reality of the counterfactual. to illustrate this, i'll give an example: if Bob were faced with the choice of stealing something he wants, or not getting what he wants he would steal what he wants. this would be what we call a counterfactual. in a given circumstance A, result is B. now, if God were to ensure Bob never had a circumstance where he could either steal what he wants or not get it, it still wouldn't change the reality of what he would freely do in that circumstance. so though it may seem that God would eliminate evil by doing this, all he does is ensure evil doesn't surface but it would still exist in our hearts.
3. why is a world with evil better than a world without free will?-- because a world without free will would not only be without moral evil, but also without moral good. in order for someone to do what is right, they must make a choice to do so over what is wrong. without the option of choosing wrong, there is no right. it's like saying 'why don't we play games where everyone is a winner...' if there's no ability to lose, it defeats the purpose of winning. the same is true with moral good.

Objection: the idea of free will is inconsistent with God's omniscience, omnipotence, and divine plan.-- this is an objection I will return to later when I cover the subject of God, the nature of his omniscience and our free will.

this doesn't matter. that's not my argument as to why god doesn't exist. god doesn't exist because god was invented to enslave the people to an idea. for control. all religions are vastly different, the one thing they all have in common is that if you are bad you will be punished, but in real life, it is not the supernatural force which punishes you, it is people. all have power over love and death. not supernatural power, just marriage rituals and death rituals.

Also, what is good and evil? This argument only works if you can define good and evil, and since most people think they are doing good, or at least what is best for them, and only condemn others as evil, or themselves if they have perhaps had a change of mind, then good and evil are slippery.

people do what is best for their tribe, whatever group that is, and also what is best for themselves, they do this because it is their animal instinct to do so. The invention of good and evil as words is necessary because of our complex social structure and only has meaning amongst humans, to all of nature itself and the universe, good and evil are meaningless, and just part of how our tiny machine works.

[Faith No More]

FNM said that free will violated doctrine. I replied that New Church doctrine was not violated and presented a summary of the doctrine. Whether the doctrine was actually revealed or not was never the issue.

I didn't say it violated church doctrine. I said the claim is paradoxical with the concept of Christian heaven. The free will defense states that evil is necessary for free will to exist, but heaven is a clear example of that not being true. No matter how you try to spin it, the free will defense and Christian heaven cannot co-exist unless you are willing to claim there is no free will in heaven.