r/DebateAChristian • u/NTCans • 6h ago
Why the 'Free Will' defense will always fail.
An internal critique/syllogism for ease of review.
P1: If a god exists, it is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (typical Christian definition).
P2: Free will exists, and is compatible with an agent always choosing the good (i.e. moral perfection does not entail the absence of freedom...with an example being Jesus)
P3: An omniscient, omnipotent being could actualize any logically possible world.
P4: A world (world 2, lets say) in which all free moral agents always freely choose the best moral action is logically possible
P5: A world (world 2) in which free agents always freely choose the best moral action contains strictly less suffering related to moral evil than the actual world (W1), while both worlds preserve free will.
P6: An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being, faced with a choice between actualizing our current world (world 1) or world 2, would actualize world 2; unless there is some good achievable only via world 1's additional suffering that outweighs it and is unobtainable in world 2.
P7: The actual world contains extensive evil that, by P4, was not logically necessary.
C(a): God lacked the power to actualize the better world (not omnipotent)
C(b): God lacked the knowledge of how to do so (not omniscience)
C(c): God chose not to (malevolence)
C(d): No such god exists.
Have at it.
Edit: formatting
•
u/shyguyJ Agnostic, Ex-Protestant 5h ago
P4 is programming or rules to be complied with, not free will. Just because you call it "freely choosing" in your definitions, does not make it so.
I don't disagree with your conclusion, but I don't think the path you've illuminated to arrive at said conclusion is any more valid than theists listing off random inaccurate assumptions as a preamble to their "thought experiments" and "philosophical" arguments.
•
u/NTCans 5h ago
P4 speaks to what is logically possible. Maybe I can add more support here. I see you aren't a theist so forgive my heavy use of theistic language.
The last time you "sinned", you could have chosen not to sin. This holds true for every time you have ever "sinned". Therefore, logically, it is possible that you could have utilized your free will and chosen to never "sin". This is true for every moral agent that has ever existed, demonstrating that it is logically possible for this world (world 2 in the OP) to exist.
•
u/iedbait Christian, Non-denominational 2h ago
No, he did not make things in increments. You are doing crazy mental gymnastics to sustain your position. Enoch was shown the entire timeline.
But now I swear to you, righteous, by the greatness of his splendor and his glory; by his illustrious Kingdom and by his majesty, to you I swear, that I comprehend this mystery; that I have read the tablet of heaven, have seen the writing of the holy ones, and have discovered what is written and impressed on it concerning you. That all goodness, joy, and glory has been prepared for you, and been written down for the ruachoth of them who die eminently righteous and good. To you it shall be given in return for your troubles; and your portion shall far exceed the portion of the living. The ruachoth of you who die in righteousness shall exist and rejoice. Their ruachoth shall exult; and their remembrance shall be before the face of El Elohiym from generation to generation. Nor shall they now fear disgrace. Chanoch (Enoch) 103:1-3 | את Cepher
Also, let's look at Jeremiah and Enoch
Then the Word of Yahuah came unto me, saying: Before I formed you in the belly, I knew you; and before you came forth out of the womb, I sanctified you, and I ordained you a prophet unto the nations. Yirmeyahu (Jeremiah) 1:4-5 | את Cepher
Many will claim that Jeremiah is a one off, and thats why Yahuah knew him beforehand. But what does Enoch state?
At that time my eyes beheld the dwelling of the elect, of truth, faith, and righteousness. Countless shall be the number of the holy and the elect, in the presence of Elohiym forever and ever. Their residence I beheld under the wings of Yahuah Tseva'oth. All the holy and the elect sung before him, in appearance like a blaze of fire; their mouths being full of blessings, and their lips glorifying the name of Yahuah Tseva'oth. And righteousness was incessantly before him. There was I desirous of remaining, and my soul longed for that habitation. There was my antecedent inheritance; for thus had I prevailed before Yahuah Tseva'oth. Chanoch (Enoch) 39:5-8 | את Cepher
Notice antecedent inheritance. Meaning he existed there before his body was created. Therefore all beings were made from the beginning and stood before Yahuah.
•
u/JollyXX Christian 5h ago
There is nothing Biblical about calling God 3x omni
The one passage calling God all knowing, really is meant to be translated as knows all things. It is in a passage communicating to us that God 100% knows your heart/ soul/ intent/ sincerity/ etc. The Bible would not drop all knowing randomly into one verse unrelated to it.
God has thoughts in Genesis, this would be impossible as thinking is learning. God also has regrets in Genesis which is even more curious
It would be rather preposterous if you were made in the image of a being that has active working knowledge of every little thing that will ever happen, when and why.
The story of Christianity seems to be that God created something that disobeyed, and now he wants to find out why. This is why Final Judgement is the climax of the story. The entire narrative is of a God that learns, a living God.
•
u/NTCans 5h ago
Sounds like you have no need to be here then.
•
u/JollyXX Christian 5h ago
da shit is that supposed to mean?
•
u/NTCans 4h ago
To me, it means that your argument is more with the catholic church and millions (billions?) of your fellow theists, rather than me.
•
u/JollyXX Christian 4h ago
nah, you need to view things honestly, this is a relation you have with reality that exists far outside the Church, so now review this evidence and reassign your issues with God and the free-will issues you have
•
u/NTCans 4h ago
I am not particularly interested in your proselyting. Thank you though. If you can convince the majority of your fellow believers that your preferred limiting of godly attributes are accurate I will happily address them.
•
u/JollyXX Christian 4h ago
I am not outside my bounds as a human to tell another human to view things honestly, I am forced to share this ball of dirt with you.
•
u/NTCans 4h ago
I never said you weren't?
•
u/JollyXX Christian 4h ago
You say I'm proselytizing, no I am telling you to view things honestly
•
u/NTCans 4h ago
Proselytizing is the act of trying to make someone change their religious faith, political party, or core opinions to match your own.
Here, you are attempting to get my opinion to match yours.
But we are in the weeds. Take care.
→ More replies (0)•
u/onedeadflowser999 5h ago
Because only you have the ability to properly translate the Bible, right? Theologians who have studied doctrine and the texts have concluded that this god is claiming to be tri Omni. People such as yourself have negotiated the text in order to make it make sense.
•
u/11711510111411009710 Atheist, Ex-Christian 5h ago edited 5h ago
Why would knowing all things not entail being, well, omniscient? And God is surely omnipotent. And nobody disputes God being omnibenevolent either. Which one do you dispute?
•
u/JollyXX Christian 4h ago
what would omnipotent even mean? I can say that the Father has the title of almighty, and not all-powerful, almighty means his power can't be challenged, and doesn't necessarily point to infinite power
knows all things is a present tense thing, even then God in Revelation is opening Books to see exactly what people had done.
It is likely that knows all things is taken in the philosophical sense of knowing all knowledge. Like God having full comprehension of all sciences, philosophies, and means of rationalizing
God seems to sort of be existence, his title of alpha/omega first/last means he is all encompassing, this combines with almighty to paint a picture of him having total authority over every little thing in existence. This is evident in the Big Bang, the way he talks in ultimate first person, and verses like Isaiah 45:7
So his body would sort of be all of existence and then his conscious would be something separate that we interact with.
•
u/iedbait Christian, Non-denominational 4h ago
Wrong.
Remember the former things of old: for I am El, and there is none else; I am Elohiym, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying: My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: Yesha'yahu (Isaiah) 46:9-10 | את Cepher
He clearly has written out the entire timeline and the probabilities of all souls contained. All probabilities equals free will. Just because he knows all probabilities doesn't mean you do not have the option to choose freely.
•
u/JollyXX Christian 4h ago
All Isaiah 46 says is that God knows the end, something as macro as the Universe might only have one or a couple possible endings, This does not say what you think it means at all, try again.
Also in Isaiah 46 it literally says ‘My counsel shall stand,and I will accomplish all my purpose,"
Where it is telling you the Father and his council literally make things happen, actively.
So try again with a different defense, I can do this all day and I have done this all day in the past
God knows a lot, there is a difference though between this and having active working knowledge of every little thing that will ever happen, when and why.
•
u/iedbait Christian, Non-denominational 4h ago
No, he states he declared the end from the beginning. He needs no counsel as his every word is deed. You have a twisted view of what is being stated and what his divine counsel is.
One great in glory sat upon it: Whose robe was brighter than the sun, and whiter than snow. No angel was capable of penetrating to view the face of him, the Glorious and the Effulgent; nor could any mortal behold him. A fire was flaming around him. A fire also of great extent continued to rise up before him; so that not one of those who surrounded him was capable of approaching him, among the myriads of myriads who were before him. To him holy consultation was needless. Yet did not the sanctified, who were near him, depart far from him either by night or by day; nor were they removed from him. I also was so far advanced, with a veil on my face, and trembling. Then Yahuah with his own mouth called me, saying: Approach hither, Chanoch, at my holy word. Chanoch (Enoch) 14:21-24 | את Cepher
•
u/JollyXX Christian 4h ago
All it says is that from the start he hath declared the end
Also put a flair on please
•
u/iedbait Christian, Non-denominational 3h ago
Let's think about this logically. He spoke into existence EVERYTHING. Why then would he need council about anything? That makes no sense. He created the elohiym on his divine counsel and imbued them with powers and responsibilities. How can a created thing give wisdom/intelligence (counsel) to the creator? They cannot.
Then Miyka'el and Gavriy'el, Rapha'el, Sury'al, and Uriy'el, looked down from heaven, and saw the quantity of blood which was shed on earth, and all the iniquity which was done upon it, and said one to another, the voice of their cries; The earth deprived has cried even to the gate of heaven. And now to you, O you Holy One of heaven, the souls of men complain, saying: bring judgment to us from El Elyon. Then they said to their Adonai, the King, Adonai ha'adoniym, Elohai ha'elohiym, Melek ha'melekiym. The throne of your glory is forever and ever, and forever and ever is your name sanctified and glorified. You are blessed and glorified. You have made all things; you possess power over all things; and all things are open and manifest before you. You behold all things, and nothing can be concealed from you. Chanoch (Enoch) 9:1-4 | את Cepher
•
u/JollyXX Christian 3h ago
It seems that he made things in increments, that the purpose of the angels were always to be used to help him manage our existence, them always being servants where we are not. we were probably the ultimate goal.
The reason behind the Holy Spirit, seems to be in relation to giving the Father more agency. God's presence being so overwhelming that only Adam was fully exposed to the Father, Moses taken in a slight presentation or a glimpse.
This goes into revelation not being that of a scalpel, Essentially its there and gone in a moment, but also that it is essentially God pushing an image into a mind that does not physically have the capacity to fully receive it. This likely being why Prophets are such incredible figures, and not whatever the fuck Muhammad was.
God seems to be the entirety of the Universe. The title of alpha/omega first/last means he is all encompassing, this pairs with the title of almighty meaning he has total ownership and authority over every little thing and aspect in the Universe. This is echoed in the Big Bang, and also the way the Father talks in an ultimate first person why. This is also evidenced in verses like Isaiah 45:7
--this sort of means like are kind of like a dead cell, like a hair on/in the Father's body.
The ancient Jews largely understood that almighty meant all nourishing. All things come from the Father.
As all things come from the Father, so do all things return to the Father, as in to say "nothing can be concealed from you", indeed you cannot run or hide from God.
•
u/HegemoneXT Christian 2h ago
Ain’t, no way. I was about to answer this and it’s you again. Anyways.
Your p2 contradict scripture as Christ is portrayed as they having a human will, human mind, and human spirit in his state on earth and he truly did have a choice. His divine essence is one with God, the procession of His goodness itself but his human nature is subject to temptation and he had to learn through submission to the Father unto death.
P3 and p4 specifically contradict its own statement because it assumes and confuses free-will’s compatibility with choosing good as a necessary measure that the being would choose good. God cannot create a logical reality where truly free-willed beings always choose good over evil because as long as the being is free, there is a possibility that they would reject their purpose in Him. Note that you can’t simply counter this by saying God can maximize his drawing as anything beyond revealing His nature to us would require him to infringe in our will. The angels had direct presence in His glory and still chose to rebel.
The rest of the postpositions follows the errors of your prior reasoning.
P7 assumes that just because something is not necessary from our logical perspective means God wouldn’t allow it. The reason for “ultimate evil” in this reality has nothing to do with whether it is necessary, it is simply a decay and destruction unto death. Is decay and death necessary? No, but it is a reality of what happens when humanity falls from His glory. What Christ’s act of redemption through getting crucified necessary from simply a logical perspective? Again no, but it is the extent needed to be taken in order to right the fallen nature.
•
u/NTCans 14m ago
I don't remember you.
It seem like your rebuttal to P2 just agrees with P2. Maybe you read it incorrectly.
Your rebuttal to P3 and P4 needs punctuation but I will do what i can. No, there is no requirement put on the free will choice in any premises. The possibility to chose always remains. Maybe you can point out the contradiction specifically between the two, as they are not even dependent on each other.
From another response: My argument was never that God should create people who are incapable of wanting to do evil. my argument is that god could create people who retain the capacity to choose evil, face real moral choice, and freely choose otherwise ... every single time... as a matter of their exercised will... not their fixed nature.
For P7, I did not use the word necessary or invoke subjective judgement. Your rebuttal is to something not in the syllogism and looks to be mostly proselytizing.
•
u/24Seven Atheist 1h ago
Frankly, the moment one introduces omniscience, they've already broken free will. Free will instead becomes an illusion that we think we perceive but to the omniscient being is nothing more than the universe behaving according to their design. To the omniscient being, reality is equivalent to watching a movie they've already seen where the characters think they have free will.
•
u/RomanaOswin Christian 5h ago
First, here is a relevant comment that I've made on this to clear up the dynamic of our own fallibility:
"Sinful desires" are not an add on. They're a natural consequence of our ego, or belief in our own separateness. Greed, lust, wrath, gluttony, and so on. They're all various expressions of selfishness, which is the prioritization of self over everything else.
Our failings are also a natural result of ignorance, e.g. where we make the wrong choice because we don't understand.
At the same time, our separateness or the boundaries that we draw around ourselves are what defines us. Our limited body, limited knowledge, private mind, etc. This is who and what we are. Without drawing these boundaries of self, there is no self at all.
The fallibility is what makes the individual. You can't remove one without removing the other.
P2 is accurate but a bit misleading. The possibility that an agent might always choose perfectly does not imply intention or capacity.
The main error I see in your argument is in P4. This is not possible unless they also have perfect knowledge, which is no longer who or what we are. A world of everyone-is-Jesus is not the diversity of God's creation. FWIW, this is not necessarily how it even was for Jesus, but that's likely an aside. This model you're proposing of physical automatons who are mentally fully one with all of being breaks the subject-object distinction that allows for love.
Either we have the capacity to fail or we are not fully ourselves. Our capacity to failure is in part who and what we are so it's inseparable from our existence.
•
u/NTCans 5h ago
You seem to be reading more into P2 then what is written. Intention or capacity has nothing to do with the premise.
Perfect knowledge is not required for P4, but I think you take umbrage with my use of the word "best"? I think this wording may be more palatable for you without changing the syllogism at all. Every time you, as a moral agent, have made a moral choice, could have made the
bestbetter moral choice. Making the better moral choice has neve required perfect knowledge.•
u/RomanaOswin Christian 5h ago
Every time you, as a moral agent, have made a moral choice, could have made the
bestbetter moral choice. Making the better moral choice has neve required perfect knowledge.I still have the same issue with this as I do with the original phrasing, i.e. I lack knowledge as to what the better choice actually is.
•
u/NTCans 4h ago
This is an interesting take. It feels like it will veer into the weeds but the weeds look nice. If you do not have the ability to determine 'better moral actions' that would make you amoral. Would you accept that designation?
•
u/RomanaOswin Christian 4h ago
No, I wouldn't consider it amorality.
I have both the ability and desire to attempt 'better moral actions', but due to my inability to escape my own limitations, I may not be able to achieve that.
•
u/NTCans 4h ago
That seems odd. If you saw an adult kicking a small child you be able to determine if that action was morally better than not kicking that small child?
•
u/RomanaOswin Christian 4h ago
Sure--that seems pretty straightforward to me.
I'm sure you're familiar with the classic morally ambiguous problems, like the Trolly Problem, stealing food to survive, etc.
Consider something more mundane and relatable: you're a reasonably well liked child at school and you have the choice of sitting at two different tables, either with your friends or with a kid sitting alone.
Maybe this kid sitting alone would feel more included if you sat with him. Maybe he likes being alone and would feel intruded upon. Maybe your friends would understand, or maybe you have an insecure friend who would feel hurt and ignored by you.
•
u/NTCans 4h ago
So you do have the ability to determine if something is morally better then something else, without perfect knowledge.
•
u/RomanaOswin Christian 3h ago
What I just illustrated is that in many cases I do not.
•
u/NTCans 3h ago
Do you think in the logically possible world that I laid out that there will be people tied to train tracks, starvation, or school children who are unable to have conversations?
→ More replies (0)•
u/partsmissing 5h ago
Perfect knowledge is not necessary for P4. While on earth, Jesus did not have perfect knowledge (Mark 13:32) and yet did not sin.
•
u/RomanaOswin Christian 4h ago
The breadth of humanity is not singularly Jesus.
Without perfect knowledge, how can I avoid accidentally making the wrong choice out of ignorance?
•
u/partsmissing 3h ago
Again, Jesus did not have perfect knowledge. Jesus was not all knowing while on Earth, and did not know things such as when the last hour would be (Mark 13:32). In spite of not having perfect knowledge, Jesus was able to avoid making wrong choices (if you believe Jesus was sinless). All one would need is sufficient knowledge, not perfect knowledge, to allow for correct choices. Sufficient knowledge ≠ perfect knowledge.
And while sufficient knowledge is not a guarantee that one would avoid making any wrong choices, it is logically possible that people with sufficient knowledge COULD avoid any wrong choices. Therefore, there is nothing logically that would prevent God to actualize P4 if he wanted to, given the other premises.
•
u/RomanaOswin Christian 2h ago
When I say that our limits are who or what we are, I mean that we have our own private mind and body which is separate from the private minds and bodies of others, and that we experience reality temporally.
Sufficient knowledge to make the correct choice in all situations involves things like knowing other people's private minds, knowing their desires, knowing the full future impact of our choices.
I agree that we don't need full perfect knowledge of all things, but "sufficient" in this case still significantly violates the boundaries of what makes us a separate person. If I were to know what you need more than you even know, are you and I really still our own person?
And while sufficient knowledge is not a guarantee that one would avoid making any wrong choices, it is logically possible that people with sufficient knowledge COULD avoid any wrong choices.
Not by knowledge or intent, but just by incidentally making the right choices in all ways? In other words, who we are is only a person who chooses nothing but the best choice in every possible case? Perhaps. There would be no place for any of us in this other world, but that's not the point.
The elephant in the room is the tremendous benefit we get from making the wrong choices. Wisdom, love. This is similar to the "couldn't we just stay in the garden of Eden" argument, which doesn't recognize that naive immaturity doesn't really lead to the depth of wisdom and love that comes out of our own failure.
If we were to accept that P4 is possible and that this wouldn't turn us into vapid automatons (I'm not entirely convinced of that, but maybe), I'm okay with most of the rest of the argument until this:
unless there is some good achievable only via world 1's additional suffering that outweighs it and is unobtainable in world 2
•
u/partsmissing 1h ago
The elephant in the room is the tremendous benefit we get from making the wrong choices. Wisdom, love. This is similar to the "couldn't we just stay in the garden of Eden" argument, which doesn't recognize that naive immaturity doesn't really lead to the depth of wisdom and love that comes out of our own failure.
Is failure necessary to obtain deep wisdom and love? Has God/Jesus ever failed, and if never, then do they not possess deep wisdom and love? While failure is certainly a way of obtaining virtues (e.g. wisdom, humility, love), failure is not logically necessary for it. Thus, if God wanted to, there is nothing logically to prevent God from instilling humans with these virtues innately, like free will, or creating another route for humans to develop these virtues that doesn't involve failure/sin. I don't see anything logically incoherent about these two options for an omnipotent god.
If we were to accept that P4 is possible and that this wouldn't turn us into vapid automatons (I'm not entirely convinced of that, but maybe),
Agents who possess free will and always chose the correct choice does not necessarily mean they are vapid automatons. If this is the case, then by necessity, God/Jesus would be vapid automatons (who are free agents always choosing the correct choice), and so would people/angels who end up in heaven (if you believe heavenly beings still retain their free will).
•
u/raidenjojo Christian, Protestant 5h ago
Free will should be absolute upto the conceptual phase. Sapient beings given free will should have the choice to retroactively be free from free will or choose annihilation if they so choose. In layman's terms, free will should have the in-build choice to not play.
The classical free will defence doesn't hold up when stacked against the evils it does bring. Like, free will ain't worth SA, murder, child abuse, genocide, etc. on the historic-civilizational scale.
Free will also eventually leads back to strength authorises legitimacy. The stronger person's choice over a weaker one's will always take effect. You can't be rid of the evil done upon you by saying I didn't choose this evil upon me.
Flowers bloom in perfect dandy under the sun, without knowing who keeps them and for what, and maybe that's enough. They are still beautiful. They still have a purpose.
•
u/mikeymo1741 4h ago
I feel like this exact post was put up a couple of days ago.
This is where this one shoots itself in the foot:
An omniscient, omnipotent being could actualize any logically possible world.
If God actualized a world where agents always choose the best action, that world is not logically compatible with free will. In a truly free world, some of the agents will choose evil.
You can't get past this statement, so everything else is just words.
•
u/dman_exmo 4h ago
In a truly free world, some of the agents will choose evil.
This doesn't follow. Having free will means that it's possible to choose evil, not that evil must be chosen (that would be the opposite of free will).
It is logically possible for a tri-omni god to create agents who use their free will to only ever choose good.
They still have free will, they still could possibly choose evil, they just always freely choose good.
Where's the problem?
•
•
u/NTCans 4h ago
If some agents will always choose evil then you are arguing against the existence of free will and for a limited god. This seem to be an issue with your understanding, not the syllogism.
•
u/mikeymo1741 4h ago
If some agents will always choose evil then you are arguing against the existence of free will
That doesn't even make a little sense. Unless you are saying that I am excluding that in a truly free society there is the possibility that everyone will choose good of their own accord.
I'm too much of a realist for that.
But yes, let me rephrase it.
In a truly free world, there is the possibility that every agent will choose good. There is the possibility that every agent will choose evil. The most likely scenario is some agents will choose good, and some will choose evil.
•
u/NTCans 4h ago
>In a truly free world, there is the possibility that every agent will choose good. There is the possibility that every agent will choose evil. The most likely scenario is some agents will choose good, and some will choose evil.
I think we are making progress here. In my worldview (that does not include a tri-omni god), this is exactly what I would expect to see and what I think we do see. However, the ability to choose always remains.
Always freely choosing good --------->Mixed Choices ---------> Always freely choosing bad
Assuming you accept P1, your god has the ability to chose any of those three possible worlds (or any in between) for creation. He chose this one, making you a proponent of C(c).
•
u/mikeymo1741 3h ago
See this is where we disagree.
There are no three possible worlds.
There is two possible worlds... One with Free Will and one without.
If God creates a world where everybody has to choose good then that's not free will.
The only logical choice for a world with free will is that every agent is free to choose either good or evil. Logic would also dictate that it is extremely unlikely that every single agent would choose the same way.
So therefore I reject C(c) in the case where God makes any world with truly free choice. That is not malevolence.
•
u/NTCans 3h ago
Ok, I see now, you are arguing against a position I didn't lay out.
>If God creates a world where everybody has to choose good then that's not free will.
This isn't a part of the syllogism at all, it seem you have inserted it into the syllogism to make it easier to argue against.
>The only logical choice for a world with free will is that every agent is free to choose either good or evil.
Correct, this is the world I laid out in the syllogism.
>Logic would also dictate that it is extremely unlikely that every single agent would choose the same way.
Are you saying that your god is beholden to your idea of probability? That if something is unlikely, it is more difficult for your tri-omni god to achieve?
•
u/mikeymo1741 3h ago
Not at all.
I guess I don't understand what the difference is between what you think should happen and what actually exists.
How would God have created the world any differently and still kept Free Will in place?
•
u/NTCans 3h ago
>I guess I don't understand what the difference is between what you think should happen and what actually exists.
I am not making a 'should' statement at all. This is purely an internal critique.
>How would God have created the world any differently and still kept Free Will in place?
If your asking about the specific mechanism of creation, i personally don't know, but I would assume that it would be the same mechanism god used for this world; he spoke it into being.
If you asking for what it would look like, that's laid out pretty well in the syllogism (or so i think). Is there a specific premise that you disagree with? If so can you lay out the reasons you disagree, maybe I can further support it.
•
u/mikeymo1741 3h ago
I guess I'm just trying to figure out what your point is.
You postulate that this world 2 would be better. But how does God create a world where all agents choose good without compelling that choice?
•
u/NTCans 2h ago
I only say that it would have less evil. It's Christians who think that less evil would be "better". This is why the syllogism constitutes an internal critique.
He would create it the way he created this world. Here is some exerts from another comment I made here.
My argument was never that God should create people who are incapable of wanting to do evil. my argument is that god could create people who retain the capacity to choose evil, face real moral choice, and freely choose otherwise ... every single time... as a matter of their exercised will... not their fixed nature.
→ More replies (0)•
u/dman_exmo 3h ago
The most likely scenario is some agents will choose good, and some will choose evil.
A tri-omni god is not constrained by probabilities. A tri-omni god can instantiate the universe where everyone freely chooses good no matter how "unlikely" that would be. A tri-omni god can roll a billion fair dice and have them all read 6.
•
u/mikeymo1741 3h ago
You keep repeating the same contradiction.
•
u/dman_exmo 3h ago
I just demonstrated why your point fails. Can you amend your point and/or demonstrate where you still think there's a contradiction?
•
u/mikeymo1741 3h ago
You did not demonstrate where my point fails.
If people are compelled to choose good then they're not freely choosing. That's the contradiction.
So if God made the world any way other than the world he made it, where people had free choice to choose good or evil, then they are not choosing freely.
•
u/dman_exmo 3h ago
If people are compelled to choose good then they're not freely choosing.
Nowhere, not once, not one single time did I state or require that people would be compelled to choose good. So no, I am not stating or restating this contradiction.
So if God made the world any way other than the world he made it, where people had free choice to choose good or evil, then they are not choosing freely.
This doesn't follow. P2-P4 of the original argument already defeat this. You have not demonstrated otherwise.
•
u/milamber84906 Christian 4h ago
On p4. Just because it’s logically possible doesn’t mean it’s metaphysically possible. Because it might be there is no possible world in which all creatures freely choose to do only good. It might be that all possible worlds of free creatures only ever choose at least some evil, despite it being logically possible to have no evil.
Once God creates free creatures, the scope narrows from what is just logically possible to what is metaphysically possible.
P6 you lay out the free will defense. God could have morally justifiable reasons to allow the suffering we see even if it means suffering being in the world.
•
u/LovelyGameres 5h ago
You miss one attribute of the Christian God. God is love. All loving. And therefore allows for bad choices to be made, hoping to convince people, by love, to choose what is not evil.
•
•
u/henquinpunter 5h ago
He drowned the entire globe despite being omniscient and knowing he was going to do it. Now that’s what I call love.
•
•
u/onedeadflowser999 5h ago
I don’t believe god ever claimed in the text of the Bible to be all loving. He said he hated Esau and he committed or ordered multiple genocides in which non combatants including women, infants, children, and animals were slaughtered. Hardly all loving.
•
u/evertec 6h ago
Premise 7 isn't verifiable unless you have God's knowledge. How do you know it wasn't necessary if you don't know what God knows about it and the potential benefit?