Total Posts:48|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Free Will

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,356
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 5:13:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't understand the free will rebuttal from theists to the problem of evil.

If I have the will to read someone's mind, I cannot do it. If I have the will to fly naturally to another solar system in not much time at all, I couldn't do it. If I have the will to walk on water, I couldn't do it. If I had the will to stab someone in the chest as hard as I could a hundred times all while not hurting the other person or killing them, I couldn't do it.

So, if God exists it's clear he has given us the will to do things we cannot do. Therefore, he could have given us the ability to have the will to kill somebody but not be able to do it.

If God exists, why does he allow us to have the will to kill somebody and the ability to carry it out, but not allow us the will to read someone's mind and the ability to carry it out?
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 5:14:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I fail to see your point.

So what if we have the "willpower" to do something.

How does that remove free will?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,356
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 5:19:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2012 5:14:33 PM, OberHerr wrote:
I fail to see your point.

So what if we have the "willpower" to do something.

How does that remove free will?

As I explained.

If I have the will to read someone's mind I cannot do it.
If I have the will to kill someone, I can do it.

An all powerful God would have put us in a universe that no matter how hard we tried and thought about it, we couldn't kill someone but we could read their minds. Instead, he made a universe where it's easy to kill and we can't read minds.

The point is clear, acting like this is the only universe God could have made is only limiting your God even further.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 5:22:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2012 5:19:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/11/2012 5:14:33 PM, OberHerr wrote:
I fail to see your point.

So what if we have the "willpower" to do something.

How does that remove free will?

As I explained.

If I have the will to read someone's mind I cannot do it.
If I have the will to kill someone, I can do it.

An all powerful God would have put us in a universe that no matter how hard we tried and thought about it, we couldn't kill someone but we could read their minds. Instead, he made a universe where it's easy to kill and we can't read minds.

The point is clear, acting like this is the only universe God could have made is only limiting your God even further.

Your point is still pointless.

Your reasoning is that reading minds is better than killing, which is debatable TBH, and that simple because God does not give us the ability to read minds, he is not all powerful, and that somehow this restricts free will.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,356
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 5:32:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2012 5:22:21 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 3/11/2012 5:19:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/11/2012 5:14:33 PM, OberHerr wrote:
I fail to see your point.

So what if we have the "willpower" to do something.

How does that remove free will?

As I explained.

If I have the will to read someone's mind I cannot do it.
If I have the will to kill someone, I can do it.

An all powerful God would have put us in a universe that no matter how hard we tried and thought about it, we couldn't kill someone but we could read their minds. Instead, he made a universe where it's easy to kill and we can't read minds.

The point is clear, acting like this is the only universe God could have made is only limiting your God even further.

Your point is still pointless.

Your reasoning is that reading minds is better than killing, which is debatable TBH, and that simple because God does not give us the ability to read minds, he is not all powerful, and that somehow this restricts free will.

Your rebuttal made no sense because reading minds was just an example. My point is really simple, God gave us the ability have the will to do something, but not be able to do it. Killing could have been just another thing we couldn' do.

"Free Will' does not solve the problem of evil. God could have created a universe where evil wasn't possible and other things were possible that aren't possible in this universe.

Another example is no matter how hard I think I can't stretch my arm 3 times the length of my body, but I can raise my arm to kill somebody. If God is powerful, he could have created a universe where we could stretch our arms 3 times the length of our bodies but couldn't raise our arm to kill.

Not a hard concept to grasp.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 5:34:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Your point is still pointless.

Your reasoning is that reading minds is better than killing, which is debatable TBH, and that simple because God does not give us the ability to read minds, he is not all powerful, and that somehow this restricts free will.:

That's not what he's saying. He's questioning why God ever gave us the ability to kill in the first place. He didn't give us the ability to read minds, so how much more difficult would it have been to disallow us the ability to hurt other people?

I mean, honestly, what good is "freewill" if he gives you certain instincts that constantly challenge it? That's totally loaded... I'm going to give you an insatiable sex drive, but if you act on it will result in damnation.

Sounds like a shakedown to me...
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 5:35:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
But, so what if he COULD have, he clearly did not choose to.

Why does this disprove free will?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,356
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 5:41:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2012 5:35:33 PM, OberHerr wrote:
But, so what if he COULD have, he clearly did not choose to.

Why does this disprove free will?

I never said I was trying to disprove a certain version of "free will" within our universe, I was just pointing out that it's a weak rebuttal to the problem of evil.

God gave us the will to do things we cannot do, and the will to do things we can do. Evil could have been in the other category, therefore using a certain type of "free will" that we experience to solve a problem of evil involving an omnipotent god doesn't cut it.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 5:42:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The next theist that answers PoE with "freewill"...tell them there's no such thing.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,356
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 5:44:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2012 5:35:33 PM, OberHerr wrote:
But, so what if he COULD have, he clearly did not choose to.

Why does this disprove free will?

Long story short if there is an omnipotent God then it's clear he limits our abilities, so committing evil could have been one of those limits. Therefore Evil does not come from man, but god himself if he exists due to the laws of the universe which create tribal organisms and a food chain based on death and the consumption of flesh.
Composer
Posts: 5,957
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2012 2:03:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
For those ' claiming to be a christian and also claiming they have a Free-Will?
Then my question remains: " Why do they continue to Freely choose to keep Sinning? "
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2012 3:28:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2012 5:19:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/11/2012 5:14:33 PM, OberHerr wrote:
I fail to see your point.

So what if we have the "willpower" to do something.

How does that remove free will?

As I explained.

If I have the will to read someone's mind I cannot do it.
If I have the will to kill someone, I can do it.

An all powerful God would have put us in a universe that no matter how hard we tried and thought about it, we couldn't kill someone but we could read their minds. Instead, he made a universe where it's easy to kill and we can't read minds.

The point is clear, acting like this is the only universe God could have made is only limiting your God even further.

If God put us in that kind of universe, we would not have any free will to be able to choose good vs. evil. We wouldn't have that choice.

In your universe, not hurting someone would be like someone in this universe saying 'I don't fly because I choose not to'. It doesn't work that way.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2012 6:06:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2012 5:13:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I don't understand the free will rebuttal from theists to the problem of evil.

If I have the will to read someone's mind, I cannot do it. If I have the will to fly naturally to another solar system in not much time at all, I couldn't do it. If I have the will to walk on water, I couldn't do it. If I had the will to stab someone in the chest as hard as I could a hundred times all while not hurting the other person or killing them, I couldn't do it.

So, if God exists it's clear he has given us the will to do things we cannot do. Therefore, he could have given us the ability to have the will to kill somebody but not be able to do it.

If God exists, why does he allow us to have the will to kill somebody and the ability to carry it out, but not allow us the will to read someone's mind and the ability to carry it out?

Free will is a lie propagated by our enemy, Satan..

There are only TWO wills to choose from: Gods and the devils..

So reality itself is binary; 0s and 1s, just like the Matrix ;D

The enemy always wants to dress his will up (which is really only blind opposition to everything God says) as free will or freedom or mind expansion etc.. in reality his will is slavery.
The Cross.. the Cross.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2012 6:16:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Free will is a lie propagated by our enemy, Satan..

There are only TWO wills to choose from: Gods and the devils..:

It's all God's fault, at least according to the bible.

"God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned." -- 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2012 6:22:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/12/2012 6:16:32 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Free will is a lie propagated by our enemy, Satan..

There are only TWO wills to choose from: Gods and the devils..:

It's all God's fault, at least according to the bible.

"God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned." -- 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12

Go back and read the context of that text; They have already chosen to defy God, so God sends them a delusion that they can't have 'the best of both worlds'.
The Cross.. the Cross.
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2012 4:00:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2012 5:13:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I don't understand the free will rebuttal from theists to the problem of evil.

If I have the will to read someone's mind, I cannot do it. If I have the will to fly naturally to another solar system in not much time at all, I couldn't do it. If I have the will to walk on water, I couldn't do it. If I had the will to stab someone in the chest as hard as I could a hundred times all while not hurting the other person or killing them, I couldn't do it.

So, if God exists it's clear he has given us the will to do things we cannot do. Therefore, he could have given us the ability to have the will to kill somebody but not be able to do it.

If God exists, why does he allow us to have the will to kill somebody and the ability to carry it out, but not allow us the will to read someone's mind and the ability to carry it out?

Begging the question of why evil exists is hardly a rebuttal to theism. Proving that evil exists does not prove that God does not. All you accomplish in the task is proving that evil exists. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz offers a simple explanation of this.

"How can this world be the best of all possible worlds? After all, as Voltaire brought out so clearly in Candide, it certainly seems that this world, in which one finds no short supply of natural and moral horrors, is far from perfect – indeed, it seems pretty lousy. Certainly only a fool could believe that it is the best world possible. But, Leibniz speaks on behalf of the fool, with an argument that has essentially the following structure:

(1) God is omnipotent and omniscient and benevolent and the free creator of the world. (Definition)
(2) Things could have been otherwise—i.e., there are other possible worlds. (Premise)
(3) Suppose this world is not the best of all possible worlds. (I.e., "The world could be better.")
(4) If this world is not the best of all possible worlds, then at least one of the following must be the case:

God was not powerful enough to bring about a better world; or
God did not know how this world would develop after his creation of it (i.e. God lacked foreknowledge); or
God did not wish this world to be the best; or
God did not create the world; or
there were no other possible worlds from which God could choose.

(5) But, any one or more of the disjuncts of (4) contradicts (1) or (2).
(6) Therefore, this world is the best of all possible worlds.

In other words, Leibniz seems to argue that, if one is to hold the traditional theistic conception of God and believe that one can meaningfully assert that the world could have been other than it is, then one must hold that this world is the best possible."


Evidently God places some value on free will. Any limits he places on what we are capable of accomplishing is a limit on free will itself. Increasing and decreasing free will has tradeoffs that we cannot understand. Only God, a perfect being, is capable of knowing why this world is the best possible world even with all of the evil and suffering that exists within it. Only God can understand why he free will he has granted us is so valuable as to justify the existence of said evils. Naturally, as we see, the question of why evil exists comes after the question of whether or not God exists, not prior.

http://plato.stanford.edu...
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2012 5:34:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
My preferred rebuttal is:

Why does the choice have to be between evil and good? Why can't God fashion a world in which actions are all varying levels of good?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Composer
Posts: 5,957
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2012 12:45:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/12/2012 6:06:50 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
Free will is a lie propagated by our enemy, Satan..
Story book god was a Satan -

"And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah". (2 Samuel 24: 1) KJV story book

Comparing this parallel account of the same incident we read: -

And Satan stood up against Israel, , , , (1 Chron. 21: 1) KJV story book

Later in story book 1 Chron. 21 we read: -

And God was displeased with this thing; therefore he smote Israel. {And...: Heb. And it was evil in the eyes of the LORD concerning this thing} 8 And David said unto God, I have sinned greatly, because I have done this thing: but now, I beseech thee, do away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly. (1 Chron. 21: 7 - 8) KJV story book

So the ADVERSARY = Satan (i.e. Satan is a Hebrew Word - Metaphor) that was against Israel / smote Israel - was definitely not a naughty spirit angel supernatural being (which don't literally exist in or out of the story book pages) but was story book god itself!

At 3/12/2012 6:06:50 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
There are only TWO wills to choose from: Gods and the devils..
As you are a malignant Sinner, why do you Freely choose to follow your alleged Devil?

At 3/12/2012 6:06:50 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
The enemy always wants to dress his will up (which is really only blind opposition to everything God says) as free will or freedom or mind expansion etc.. in reality his will is slavery.
Why are you Freely choosing to be a slave to Sin?
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2012 3:14:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I do like Rational Thinker's take on the issue, but I prefer to ask "Why does God prioritize the criminal's free will over the victim's well-being?" Imagine if our police force did the same thing...
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2012 6:34:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/12/2012 4:00:05 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 3/11/2012 5:13:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I don't understand the free will rebuttal from theists to the problem of evil.

If I have the will to read someone's mind, I cannot do it. If I have the will to fly naturally to another solar system in not much time at all, I couldn't do it. If I have the will to walk on water, I couldn't do it. If I had the will to stab someone in the chest as hard as I could a hundred times all while not hurting the other person or killing them, I couldn't do it.

So, if God exists it's clear he has given us the will to do things we cannot do. Therefore, he could have given us the ability to have the will to kill somebody but not be able to do it.

If God exists, why does he allow us to have the will to kill somebody and the ability to carry it out, but not allow us the will to read someone's mind and the ability to carry it out?

Begging the question of why evil exists is hardly a rebuttal to theism. Proving that evil exists does not prove that God does not. All you accomplish in the task is proving that evil exists. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz offers a simple explanation of this.

"How can this world be the best of all possible worlds? After all, as Voltaire brought out so clearly in Candide, it certainly seems that this world, in which one finds no short supply of natural and moral horrors, is far from perfect – indeed, it seems pretty lousy. Certainly only a fool could believe that it is the best world possible. But, Leibniz speaks on behalf of the fool, with an argument that has essentially the following structure:

(1) God is omnipotent and omniscient and benevolent and the free creator of the world. (Definition)
(2) Things could have been otherwise—i.e., there are other possible worlds. (Premise)
(3) Suppose this world is not the best of all possible worlds. (I.e., "The world could be better.")
(4) If this world is not the best of all possible worlds, then at least one of the following must be the case:

God was not powerful enough to bring about a better world; or
God did not know how this world would develop after his creation of it (i.e. God lacked foreknowledge); or
God did not wish this world to be the best; or
God did not create the world; or
there were no other possible worlds from which God could choose.

(5) But, any one or more of the disjuncts of (4) contradicts (1) or (2).
(6) Therefore, this world is the best of all possible worlds.

In other words, Leibniz seems to argue that, if one is to hold the traditional theistic conception of God and believe that one can meaningfully assert that the world could have been other than it is, then one must hold that this world is the best possible."


Evidently God places some value on free will. Any limits he places on what we are capable of accomplishing is a limit on free will itself. Increasing and decreasing free will has tradeoffs that we cannot understand. Only God, a perfect being, is capable of knowing why this world is the best possible world even with all of the evil and suffering that exists within it. Only God can understand why he free will he has granted us is so valuable as to justify the existence of said evils. Naturally, as we see, the question of why evil exists comes after the question of whether or not God exists, not prior.

http://plato.stanford.edu...

I have often had the OP's thoughts on the matter.

There are many things we cannot do, and this is an acceptable infringment upon Free Will.
There are many things we don't do because they are sufficiently unpleasant, and this is an acceptable infringment upon Free Will.
There are many things we don't do, because we aren't aware of them as options, and this is an acceptable infringement upon Free Will.

So the question is, why isn't sin one of those things (either something we can't or won't do?)

No, with regards to your specific response, it may be the case that the answer lies within some unknowable reasoning on behalf of God, but within the scope of a logical argument, that has no place. To just assume that the answer is correct, while at the same time admitting you can't show why, is begging the question.

Why should I assume anything on some god's behalf?
Suqua
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2012 9:47:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2012 5:13:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I don't understand the free will rebuttal from theists to the problem of evil.

If I have the will to read someone's mind, I cannot do it. If I have the will to fly naturally to another solar system in not much time at all, I couldn't do it. If I have the will to walk on water, I couldn't do it. If I had the will to stab someone in the chest as hard as I could a hundred times all while not hurting the other person or killing them, I couldn't do it.

So, if God exists it's clear he has given us the will to do things we cannot do. Therefore, he could have given us the ability to have the will to kill somebody but not be able to do it.

This God of your imagination does not exist!!!!

If God exists, why does he allow us to have the will to kill somebody and the ability to carry it out, but not allow us the will to read someone's mind and the ability to carry it out?
Suqua
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2012 10:04:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2012 5:44:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/11/2012 5:35:33 PM, OberHerr wrote:
But, so what if he COULD have, he clearly did not choose to.

Why does this disprove free will?

Long story short if there is an omnipotent God then it's clear he limits our abilities, so committing evil could have been one of those limits.

Evil does have it's limits or we would have been consumed already. And in the very near future it will be taken care of, for everyone will will make their (free will) choice!

Therefore Evil does not come from man, but god himself if he exists due to the laws of the universe which create tribal organisms and a food chain based on death and the consumption of flesh.

You speak as an atheist.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2012 12:21:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's all God's fault, at least according to the bible.

"God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned." -- 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12

Go back and read the context of that text; They have already chosen to defy God, so God sends them a delusion that they can't have 'the best of both worlds'.:

Oh, really?

1. The bible clearly states that it was a plan for the Son of Man to die.
2. The bible clearly states that each Disciple was hand selected by Jesus (including Judas).
3. John 6 clearly demonstrates that Jesus knew who would betray him, and chose Judas intentionally.

Do the math, he had no choice, just like Phaoroh had no choice. He was ordained to be the fall guy in order to fulfill the scriptures.

*Boom*

Head shot.

You fail.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2012 1:10:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/13/2012 6:34:06 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/12/2012 4:00:05 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 3/11/2012 5:13:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I don't understand the free will rebuttal from theists to the problem of evil.

If I have the will to read someone's mind, I cannot do it. If I have the will to fly naturally to another solar system in not much time at all, I couldn't do it. If I have the will to walk on water, I couldn't do it. If I had the will to stab someone in the chest as hard as I could a hundred times all while not hurting the other person or killing them, I couldn't do it.

So, if God exists it's clear he has given us the will to do things we cannot do. Therefore, he could have given us the ability to have the will to kill somebody but not be able to do it.

If God exists, why does he allow us to have the will to kill somebody and the ability to carry it out, but not allow us the will to read someone's mind and the ability to carry it out?

Begging the question of why evil exists is hardly a rebuttal to theism. Proving that evil exists does not prove that God does not. All you accomplish in the task is proving that evil exists. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz offers a simple explanation of this.

"How can this world be the best of all possible worlds? After all, as Voltaire brought out so clearly in Candide, it certainly seems that this world, in which one finds no short supply of natural and moral horrors, is far from perfect – indeed, it seems pretty lousy. Certainly only a fool could believe that it is the best world possible. But, Leibniz speaks on behalf of the fool, with an argument that has essentially the following structure:

(1) God is omnipotent and omniscient and benevolent and the free creator of the world. (Definition)
(2) Things could have been otherwise—i.e., there are other possible worlds. (Premise)
(3) Suppose this world is not the best of all possible worlds. (I.e., "The world could be better.")
(4) If this world is not the best of all possible worlds, then at least one of the following must be the case:

God was not powerful enough to bring about a better world; or
God did not know how this world would develop after his creation of it (i.e. God lacked foreknowledge); or
God did not wish this world to be the best; or
God did not create the world; or
there were no other possible worlds from which God could choose.

(5) But, any one or more of the disjuncts of (4) contradicts (1) or (2).
(6) Therefore, this world is the best of all possible worlds.

In other words, Leibniz seems to argue that, if one is to hold the traditional theistic conception of God and believe that one can meaningfully assert that the world could have been other than it is, then one must hold that this world is the best possible."


Evidently God places some value on free will. Any limits he places on what we are capable of accomplishing is a limit on free will itself. Increasing and decreasing free will has tradeoffs that we cannot understand. Only God, a perfect being, is capable of knowing why this world is the best possible world even with all of the evil and suffering that exists within it. Only God can understand why he free will he has granted us is so valuable as to justify the existence of said evils. Naturally, as we see, the question of why evil exists comes after the question of whether or not God exists, not prior.

http://plato.stanford.edu...

I have often had the OP's thoughts on the matter.

There are many things we cannot do, and this is an acceptable infringment upon Free Will.
There are many things we don't do because they are sufficiently unpleasant, and this is an acceptable infringment upon Free Will.
There are many things we don't do, because we aren't aware of them as options, and this is an acceptable infringement upon Free Will.

So the question is, why isn't sin one of those things (either something we can't or won't do?)

No, with regards to your specific response, it may be the case that the answer lies within some unknowable reasoning on behalf of God, but within the scope of a logical argument, that has no place. To just assume that the answer is correct, while at the same time admitting you can't show why, is begging the question.

Why should I assume anything on some god's behalf?

Remember that I claim that questions about the existence of evil should occur after the debate about God's existence has been resolved. Assuming God exists, he must be a perfect being and thus this world must be the best possible world. God's existence proves this as true. To question the conclusion is to question perfection.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2012 1:41:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/13/2012 1:10:11 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 3/13/2012 6:34:06 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/12/2012 4:00:05 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 3/11/2012 5:13:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I don't understand the free will rebuttal from theists to the problem of evil.

If I have the will to read someone's mind, I cannot do it. If I have the will to fly naturally to another solar system in not much time at all, I couldn't do it. If I have the will to walk on water, I couldn't do it. If I had the will to stab someone in the chest as hard as I could a hundred times all while not hurting the other person or killing them, I couldn't do it.

So, if God exists it's clear he has given us the will to do things we cannot do. Therefore, he could have given us the ability to have the will to kill somebody but not be able to do it.

If God exists, why does he allow us to have the will to kill somebody and the ability to carry it out, but not allow us the will to read someone's mind and the ability to carry it out?

Begging the question of why evil exists is hardly a rebuttal to theism. Proving that evil exists does not prove that God does not. All you accomplish in the task is proving that evil exists. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz offers a simple explanation of this.

"How can this world be the best of all possible worlds? After all, as Voltaire brought out so clearly in Candide, it certainly seems that this world, in which one finds no short supply of natural and moral horrors, is far from perfect – indeed, it seems pretty lousy. Certainly only a fool could believe that it is the best world possible. But, Leibniz speaks on behalf of the fool, with an argument that has essentially the following structure:

(1) God is omnipotent and omniscient and benevolent and the free creator of the world. (Definition)
(2) Things could have been otherwise—i.e., there are other possible worlds. (Premise)
(3) Suppose this world is not the best of all possible worlds. (I.e., "The world could be better.")
(4) If this world is not the best of all possible worlds, then at least one of the following must be the case:

God was not powerful enough to bring about a better world; or
God did not know how this world would develop after his creation of it (i.e. God lacked foreknowledge); or
God did not wish this world to be the best; or
God did not create the world; or
there were no other possible worlds from which God could choose.

(5) But, any one or more of the disjuncts of (4) contradicts (1) or (2).
(6) Therefore, this world is the best of all possible worlds.

In other words, Leibniz seems to argue that, if one is to hold the traditional theistic conception of God and believe that one can meaningfully assert that the world could have been other than it is, then one must hold that this world is the best possible."


Evidently God places some value on free will. Any limits he places on what we are capable of accomplishing is a limit on free will itself. Increasing and decreasing free will has tradeoffs that we cannot understand. Only God, a perfect being, is capable of knowing why this world is the best possible world even with all of the evil and suffering that exists within it. Only God can understand why he free will he has granted us is so valuable as to justify the existence of said evils. Naturally, as we see, the question of why evil exists comes after the question of whether or not God exists, not prior.

http://plato.stanford.edu...

I have often had the OP's thoughts on the matter.

There are many things we cannot do, and this is an acceptable infringment upon Free Will.
There are many things we don't do because they are sufficiently unpleasant, and this is an acceptable infringment upon Free Will.
There are many things we don't do, because we aren't aware of them as options, and this is an acceptable infringement upon Free Will.

So the question is, why isn't sin one of those things (either something we can't or won't do?)

No, with regards to your specific response, it may be the case that the answer lies within some unknowable reasoning on behalf of God, but within the scope of a logical argument, that has no place. To just assume that the answer is correct, while at the same time admitting you can't show why, is begging the question.

Why should I assume anything on some god's behalf?

Remember that I claim that questions about the existence of evil should occur after the debate about God's existence has been resolved. Assuming God exists, he must be a perfect being and thus this world must be the best possible world. God's existence proves this as true. To question the conclusion is to question perfection.

But the problem of the existence of evil IS a debate about God's existence. Or, at least, the existence of a specific kind of God.
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2012 8:16:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/13/2012 1:41:09 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/13/2012 1:10:11 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 3/13/2012 6:34:06 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/12/2012 4:00:05 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 3/11/2012 5:13:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I don't understand the free will rebuttal from theists to the problem of evil.

If I have the will to read someone's mind, I cannot do it. If I have the will to fly naturally to another solar system in not much time at all, I couldn't do it. If I have the will to walk on water, I couldn't do it. If I had the will to stab someone in the chest as hard as I could a hundred times all while not hurting the other person or killing them, I couldn't do it.

So, if God exists it's clear he has given us the will to do things we cannot do. Therefore, he could have given us the ability to have the will to kill somebody but not be able to do it.

If God exists, why does he allow us to have the will to kill somebody and the ability to carry it out, but not allow us the will to read someone's mind and the ability to carry it out?

Begging the question of why evil exists is hardly a rebuttal to theism. Proving that evil exists does not prove that God does not. All you accomplish in the task is proving that evil exists. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz offers a simple explanation of this.

"How can this world be the best of all possible worlds? After all, as Voltaire brought out so clearly in Candide, it certainly seems that this world, in which one finds no short supply of natural and moral horrors, is far from perfect – indeed, it seems pretty lousy. Certainly only a fool could believe that it is the best world possible. But, Leibniz speaks on behalf of the fool, with an argument that has essentially the following structure:

(1) God is omnipotent and omniscient and benevolent and the free creator of the world. (Definition)
(2) Things could have been otherwise—i.e., there are other possible worlds. (Premise)
(3) Suppose this world is not the best of all possible worlds. (I.e., "The world could be better.")
(4) If this world is not the best of all possible worlds, then at least one of the following must be the case:

God was not powerful enough to bring about a better world; or
God did not know how this world would develop after his creation of it (i.e. God lacked foreknowledge); or
God did not wish this world to be the best; or
God did not create the world; or
there were no other possible worlds from which God could choose.

(5) But, any one or more of the disjuncts of (4) contradicts (1) or (2).
(6) Therefore, this world is the best of all possible worlds.

In other words, Leibniz seems to argue that, if one is to hold the traditional theistic conception of God and believe that one can meaningfully assert that the world could have been other than it is, then one must hold that this world is the best possible."


Evidently God places some value on free will. Any limits he places on what we are capable of accomplishing is a limit on free will itself. Increasing and decreasing free will has tradeoffs that we cannot understand. Only God, a perfect being, is capable of knowing why this world is the best possible world even with all of the evil and suffering that exists within it. Only God can understand why he free will he has granted us is so valuable as to justify the existence of said evils. Naturally, as we see, the question of why evil exists comes after the question of whether or not God exists, not prior.

http://plato.stanford.edu...

I have often had the OP's thoughts on the matter.

There are many things we cannot do, and this is an acceptable infringment upon Free Will.
There are many things we don't do because they are sufficiently unpleasant, and this is an acceptable infringment upon Free Will.
There are many things we don't do, because we aren't aware of them as options, and this is an acceptable infringement upon Free Will.

So the question is, why isn't sin one of those things (either something we can't or won't do?)

No, with regards to your specific response, it may be the case that the answer lies within some unknowable reasoning on behalf of God, but within the scope of a logical argument, that has no place. To just assume that the answer is correct, while at the same time admitting you can't show why, is begging the question.

Why should I assume anything on some god's behalf?

Remember that I claim that questions about the existence of evil should occur after the debate about God's existence has been resolved. Assuming God exists, he must be a perfect being and thus this world must be the best possible world. God's existence proves this as true. To question the conclusion is to question perfection.

But the problem of the existence of evil IS a debate about God's existence. Or, at least, the existence of a specific kind of God.

The argument I posted proved the compatibility of an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, free-creator of the world or God and evil's existence. What's the problem?
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2012 8:37:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/13/2012 1:10:11 PM, Mestari wrote:

Remember that I claim that questions about the existence of evil should occur after the debate about God's existence has been resolved. Assuming God exists, he must be a perfect being and thus this world must be the best possible world. God's existence proves this as true. To question the conclusion is to question perfection.

That doesn't follow from the premise that a perfect God exists. See: Plantinga
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Alter2Ego
Posts: 235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2012 11:27:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2012 5:13:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I don't understand the free will rebuttal from theists to the problem of evil.

If I have the will to read someone's mind, I cannot do it. If I have the will to fly naturally to another solar system in not much time at all, I couldn't do it. If I have the will to walk on water, I couldn't do it. If I had the will to stab someone in the chest as hard as I could a hundred times all while not hurting the other person or killing them, I couldn't do it.

ALTER2EGO -to- RATIONAL_THINKER9119:

The term "free will" is simply with reference to one's ability to make independent choices. It has nothing to do with whether or not one can read people's mind, fly to another solar system, or walk on water, etc.

At 3/11/2012 5:13:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
So, if God exists it's clear he has given us the will to do things we cannot do. Therefore, he could have given us the ability to have the will to kill somebody but not be able to do it.

If God exists, why does he allow us to have the will to kill somebody and the ability to carry it out, but not allow us the will to read someone's mind and the ability to carry it out?

ALTER2EGO -to- RATIONAL_THINKER9119:

What it boils down to is that you're asking that God should have created robots. Robots don't have free will. They can only do what they're programmed to do. If that's what you would have wanted, you're on your own.

I'll take free will anytime: the ability to choose what to eat and drink, the ability to choose which type of music or films I enjoy, the ability to choose what type of people I wish to associate with, the ability to choose where I want to go on vacation, the ability to choose if I want to sing or dance, etc. Free will—the ability to choose—is what gives life meaning. Only a God of love would have given us the gift of free will.

As previously state, Jehovah did not create robots. He created intelligent humans (Adam and Eve) that were physically perfect. The Bible said he created humans in his "image"--meaning we were born with the ability to exercise God's outstanding qualities: (1) Love, (2) Wisdom, (3) Justice, and (4) Power.

"And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God's image he created him; male and female he created them." (Genesis 1:27)

You are blaming Jehovah for the gift of free will/the ability to choose, because humans—of their own free will and volition—abused the gift God gave us by harming others. You need to lay the blame where it belongs. Lay it at the feet of rebellious humans.

"See! This only I have found, that the true God made mankind upright, but they themselves have sought out many plans." (Ecclesiastes 7:29)
"That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)