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

[Ryantology]

Heaven simply is not the huge problem that you guys make it out to be. Let’s start with my earlier statement. Your nature does not determine your choices; but rather, your choices define your nature.

Getting good results in life is always as simple* as making the right choices, because as we all know, there is no such thing in this world as circumstances beyond the control of a single human being. Thank God there is never any ambiguity over which choices are correct and which are not. That would certainly muddy the waters a bit.

*to simple people

[Neo-Scholastic]

Heaven simply is not the huge problem that you guys make it out to be. Let’s start with my earlier statement. Your nature does not determine your choices; but rather, your choices define your nature.

Getting good results in life is always as simple* as making the right choices, because as we all know, there is no such thing in this world as circumstances beyond the control of a single human being. Thank God there is never any ambiguity over which choices are correct and which are not. That would certainly muddy the waters a bit.

*to simple people

I already anticipated and answered this objection earlier. Outcomes are always uncertain because no one can know about the choices of others that have not yet been made.

[Coffee Jesus]

Heaven simply is not the huge problem that you guys make it out to be. Let’s start with my earlier statement. Your nature does not determine your choices; but rather, your choices define your nature. The more choices you make the more fixed your nature becomes, for good or ill. Anyone can see that long-standing habits are harder to break than the first few tries. For example, people can quit smoking and never return to the habit, but long-time smokers find it more difficult than those who just started. By the time you reach the afterlife, your habits have gained enough momentum that you can continue becoming more of what you already are unto eternity.

This has nothing to do with the nature of free will. If something has already taken a long time to happen, then it has a lower probability of happening any time soon. The longer it takes to draw a red marble from a bag, the fewer red marbles there will be in that bag. The longer it takes to scare a criminal, the less fearful he must be. The longer it takes an abuser to feel guilt, the less capable of guilt they are. etc.

Smoking addiction is a particularly bad example because it has a biological basis.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Heaven simply is not the huge problem that you guys make it out to be. Let’s start with my earlier statement. Your nature does not determine your choices; but rather, your choices define your nature. The more choices you make the more fixed your nature becomes, for good or ill. Anyone can see that long-standing habits are harder to break than the first few tries. For example, people can quit smoking and never return to the habit, but long-time smokers find it more difficult than those who just started. By the time you reach the afterlife, your habits have gained enough momentum that you can continue becoming more of what you already are unto eternity.

This has nothing to do with the nature of free will. If something has already taken a long time to happen, then it has a lower probability of happening any time soon. The longer it takes to draw a red marble from a bag, the fewer red marbles there will be in that bag. The longer it takes to scare a criminal, the less fearful he must be. The longer it takes an abuser to feel guilt, the less capable of guilt they are. etc.

Smoking addiction is a particularly bad example because it has a biological basis.

Are you equating human behavior with chance outcomes? Seems like apples and oranges to me.

[Coffee Jesus]

Are you equating human behavior with chance outcomes? Seems like apples and oranges to me.

I'm talking about frequency, which is related to chance. If an event takes a long time to occur, you might be justified in assuming that the event occurs at a low frequency, in which case you shouldn't expect it to occur any time soon.
For example, if an abuser was a short-term abuser who quickly stopped out of guilt, that person probably experiences guilt frequently. If they're a long-term abuser who still feels no guilt, that person probably feels guilt rarely, so we shouldn't expect their guilt to kick in any time soon.

Many people assume the opposite is the case when they make the gambler's fallacy, but that's a fallacy.
Wikipedia - Gambler's Fallacy
"The gambler's fallacy [...] is the mistaken belief that if something happens more frequently than normal during some period, then it will happen less frequently in the future; likewise, if something happens less frequently than normal during some period, then it will happen more frequently in the future (presumably as a means of balancing nature)."[/quote]

[Neo-Scholastic]

I don't see how that applies. Human behavior is generally intentional which is the opposite of random.

[Coffee Jesus]

I don't see how that applies. Human behavior is generally intentional which is the opposite of random.

A vast literature of psychological research shows that our choices are governed by the laws of chance. Free will could be operating in there somewhere, but there are many other factors at play.

---

I think this goes back to Esquilax's opening post. Free will doesn't mean your choices are unconditional. In Esquilax's opening example, the choice to swim is conditioned upon whether water is present.

No water = no choice to swim

We could go further by saying that the frequency of the choice to swim is conditioned upon the prevalence of water. If there is more water, you will swim more frequently. If there is less water, you will swim less frequently. This doesn't mean that free will doesn't influence each decision to swim or not swim, just as the 1/36 frequency of rolling snake eyes doesn't mean that the laws of physics don't influence each roll of the dice.

Similarly, somebody who is trapped in poverty is more likely to seek wealth through illegitimate means, such as stealing. This doesn't mean they couldn't choose not to steal; it just means the probability of them choosing to steal was conditioned upon their circumstances.

[RobbyPants]

I feel you're all over-thinking and adding to the issue of free will. I don't see what's so hard about it. Whether evil exists or not, God gave us the freedom to make our own decisions. We can make whatever choices we please. What's so hard to understand about that?

It's unnecessary, unless you feel God is somehow beholden to the system of heaven and hell as opposed to having created heaven and hell. You're stripping out all the bad parts of the issue so that only the good remain and then acting confused at why people have a problem with it.

---

...yet he doesn't do that here on earth.

He's capable of wiping away our tears, and yet, he doesn't.

Yes he does

No he doesn't.

Here, I'll even put in a little more effort than you did: people suffer here on earth in ways that they don't suffer in heaven, or people remember their suffering in ways they're not supposed to in heaven. If you're saying that what we have here is what we get in heaven... then I'm not sure why Christians get so exited about heaven.

---

Your nature does not determine your choices; but rather, your choices define your nature.

Anecdotally, I can tell you you're wrong. Any time I see money sitting out in the open with no one watching it, I don't steal it. Now yes, the fact that I didn't steal it means I'm not a thief (at least at that moment); however, I can assure you that I never feel tempted to steal money. It's not like I have some tiny angel and demon arguing on my shoulders, or something. It's literally against my nature to steal that money, so I don't steal it. So, my nature is definitely determining my choice, there.

Also, less anecdotally, studies in neuroscience show that we make decisions before we're consciously aware of them. Whether this is our nature determining our choices or us simply making them faster than we realize, there's something happening there beyond conscious, cognitive decision-making.

[Chad32]

It's unnecessary, unless you feel God is somehow beholden to the system of heaven and hell as opposed to having created heaven and hell. You're stripping out all the bad parts of the issue so that only the good remain and then acting confused at why people have a problem with it.

That's the core of apologetics, isn't it? Blame the victim. Say they misunderstood the scriptures. Anything that takes blame away from the guy in charge, because he's perfect and you just have to have faith that he's actually what people say he is. He gives you a free gift, except there are a lot of things he wants you to do after accepting the completely free gift. He wants to save you from hell, except he's the one who created hell and tells you that you deserve to be sent there.

He's a god of love, justice, and mercy, yet some people believe there's a lake of fire where unbelievers will be burn for eternity, which kind of breaks all three things I listed before at once. That is the mainstream view of hell, to my knowledge, yet some people are completely baffled as to why we don't worship this eldritch abomination they call a god.

There's a case to be made that ultimate justice and ultimate mercy kind of contradict each other anyway.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Smoking addiction is a particularly bad example because it has a biological basis.

The Bible is pretty clear about the lure of the flesh. Submitting to harmful biological impulses is a large part of sin.