The Christian 'Free Will Defense' being smacked-down

[Vympel]

The Challenge:

If God exists, he is all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly good.[1]

The existence of suffering is incompatible with the existence of God.

Suffering exists.

God does not exist.[2]

The Response:

Standard Free Will Defense given by lay-man Christians-

"We choose to do evil, God gave us free will, it is our choice to be absent from God"

They might use an analogy: "If I invite you to a party, and you don't RSVP, whose fault is it that you don't come?"

Of course, both of these simplistic arguments are moronic- to use the latter analogy- if I don't RSVP, I'm not just 'not coming'. I'm going to be tormented in hell for all eternity; i.e. I'm being forced to make a decision under the heaviest duress ever envisaged. Christians try to weakly apologize their way out of this by dressing it up as 'absence from God' as opposed to what Jesus *consistently* calls it in the New Testament- i.e. the fire, the gnashing of teeth, etc etc.

Why does it not compute to Christians that this situation where the unbelievers are tormented for all eternity is NOT a pre-existing one? God created the entire thing. He's omnipotent isn't he? If such a situation were an offence to him, he'd wish it out of existence- simple. He clearly likes it that way.

This is enough to stump the lay-man Christian. Notice it doesn't touch on the outrageous Original Sin, but its still quite an effective challenge.

But;

for those situations where they can give a more fancy Free Will Defense; read this:

http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/Theodicy.htm

Free Will? Riiiiiggghhhht.

[Lord of the Farce]

When it's put that way, it does seem like someone pointing a gun to your head and say: "you do exactly what I say, or I'll blow your ass away".

I'm something of an agnostic, in case anyone is curious.

[Tsyroc]

When it's put that way, it does seem like someone pointing a gun to your head and say: "you do exactly what I say, or I'll blow your ass away".

I'm something of an agnostic, in case anyone is curious.

Hell, getting your ass blown away is nice compared to being tortured for all of eternity just for not hopping on the bandwagon.

[Zoink]

Christians try to weakly apologize their way out of this by dressing it up as 'absence from God' as opposed to what Jesus *consistently* calls it in the New Testament- i.e. the fire, the gnashing of teeth, etc etc

I think its the opposite. *Most* typical Christians I meet believe hell exists, eternal punishment, the works. These same people are generally unable to discuss the moral dilemma this brings up.. so I'm not surprised. Most Christians I've met (and I can get along with) that have actually studied their religion generally believe in the "absence from God".

I'm interested in the subject from a mythological point of view. The key thing to note is that the Greek notion of an afterlife "Hades" (that you go to a realm of the dead when you die) is extremely prevalent at the time. The Roman/Greek Hades was never really a great place to be. Christians promised that you would rise up from this state (Hades, Hell) and enter a paradise if you followed Jesus. It was compatible with the people's beliefs and promised something better, that's one reason it became popular in Rome. Early Christian artefacts often mix Roman and Christian symbols, evidence of this cross-culture contamination.


-------

Can you use the following New Testament verses (the ones that reference Hell) to show that Hell is a place of eternal torment, gnashing teeth, fire, etc; and not "kingdom of death, death, destruction, debasement"? You can of course twist the meanings to fit some middle-aged notion of Hell, but what are the verses actually saying?:


Matt. 11: 23 and Luke 10: 15: "And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to Hell." "And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to Hell."

note: Capernaum is a city and cities don't have an afterlife.


Acts 2: 27: "Thou wilt not leave my [Jesus] soul in Hell: neither wilt thou suffer thy holy one to see corruption." Verse 31: "His soul was not left in Hell, neither his flesh did see corruption,"

ie. His soul was not left in the kingdom of the dead.


Matt. 14: 18 "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it."

ie. His church will not be destroyed


Rev. 6: 8: "And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth."

ie. Desruction or death followed him and this Hell is on earth.

[Credit for Hell-referencing verse summary goes to J.W. Hanson, D.D]

[Antediluvian]

I'm always amused when they try to reconcile Free Will and Predestination.

If Yaweh already knows who is going where, then what's the point of free will? All your choices have already been decided for you.

Stumps them pretty much every time.

[Shadow WarChief]

I have a different version of this that I thought up a few months ago....

God is omniscient. He knows everything about the past present and future.

Because he knows what the future WILL be, there is fate.

Because there is fate we are all bound to what god knows we will do. Therefore, there is no free will.


Therefore, belief in an omniscient God excludes the existance of free-will and belief in free will excludes the existance of an omniscient God.

I'd love to see how a creationist could reconcile this with the ol'
"God gave us free will bit" when they're clearly contradictory.

[NapoleonGH]

there is an even easier destruction of this argument. It flows from the philisophic principle of determinism which says we do not have free will and that each of our acts is necessitated by what happened before it, which I take to be that our genetic predispositions and past experiences when combined determine our choices and thus we in fact do not have free will but rather have each of our choices necessitated by a previous cause.

[Patrick Degan]

Christians try to weakly apologize their way out of this by dressing it up as 'absence from God' as opposed to what Jesus *consistently* calls it in the New Testament- i.e. the fire, the gnashing of teeth, etc etc

I think its the opposite. *Most* typical Christians I meet believe hell exists, eternal punishment, the works. These same people are generally unable to discuss the moral dilemma this brings up.. so I'm not surprised. Most Christians I've met (and I can get along with) that have actually studied their religion generally believe in the "absence from God".

However, if you're Catholic...

The Catholics have had their own little wrinkle on this whole deal for centuries with the concept of Purgatory. You could call it the Afterlife's Minimum Security Prison, where the sinners had their second shot at redemption after death after purging themselves of the sins still hanging on their rap-sheet. Everything except suicide, that is, although even that doesn't quite get you an automatic ticket to Hell.

Brought to you by the same Church which gave the world Papal Indulgences and had Rodrigo Borgia for a Pope.

[Mr Bean]

The Catholics have had their own little wrinkle on this whole deal for centuries with the concept of Purgatory. You could call it the Afterlife's Minimum Security Prison, where the sinners had their second shot at redemption after death after purging themselves of the sins still hanging on their rap-sheet.

WTF IS it about Catholics? You already have SEVEN ways that you can get into Heavan no matter WHAT you do and I did not know they had yet ANOTHER way after death to get into Heavan
GodDamn!(pun-intended) Got some Sinners there don't we?

[Witness]

I like to remain open-minded and unattached to belief, which is why I choose to refrain from labelling my spiritual beliefs. God may exist, God may not. Personally, I believe we all define God differently to fit our perspective. To the Christians, God is a compassionate and merciful deity (and many disagree with good reason); to Taoists, God might be the Dao, or nature; to others, God might be fate. It all depends on your perspective.

I think God is simply the same thing that every religious or spiritual leader in history has attempted to define -- that spiritual "higher power". Giving a definition to the unexplained, albeit the fact it can not be directly/indirectly observed or subject to analysis. Which is fine, because my trust in science goes so far as to explain the physical world, however, when it comes to the metaphysical, it falls short because all you can really do is feel.

I'm very tolerant of other faiths and belief systems, and I have a capacity to learn. In my studies, I've found that Christians are the most small-minded, inconsiderate, and intolerant of them all.

For example, on one of my MSN profiles, I have a Tibetan thangka painting of Chenrezig, the Bodhisattva of Compassion in Tibetan Buddhism. One evening, while I was making my rounds, I entered a user-created Christian room. I had expressed nothing but kindness the whole time -- I greeted everyone, asked them how they were doing, and never once did I sound disdainful.

Almost immeadiately after, I was kicked out of the room by one of the hosts. There wasn't any boot message to adequately explain why I was ejected from the room (all it said was "Disruptive behavior"), so I returned to demand an explanation. The boot-happy said my profile picutre was an abomination to the Lord, that it was an idolatry! To say the least, I was very offended. They didn't even know who it was! I attempted to explain to them that I do not have idols, and that the person in my profile picture is someone I pay respect to, not worship or ask favors of.

They said they didn't care who it was, that it didn't deserve any sort of respect, and that only Jesus Christ was to be respected. This raised my level of outrage, but I remained calm in expressing my disapproval. I reminded myself that in a religion that asks only of your unquestioning and unwavering obedience it allows little mental growth for maturity, and thus they required more patience and tolerance than normal. However, I refused to remove the picture from my profile, and so they kicked me again only this time I didn't return.

My experience with this room was a one-time encounter. Never before have I had a problem with my profile pictures in the other rooms (many dismissed it as simple art), but considering the cross-legged posture of the Buddha and the compassionate smile, I can see how a Christian would misinterpret that.

I apologize if I appear to be stereotyping Christians, as this was not my intent. It's an observation, not a judgement. I do not hold any prejudice convictions against any Christians I come into contact with, because they may all be different. It is sad, because many of them truly are good people at heart. But I digress, I won't question their path. They had their choice -- everyone does -- it's only a matter of whether they decide to take that opportunity and choose, or be blind to it. Either way, I refuse to let the choices of others impede my progress.

[Patrick Degan]

The Catholics have had their own little wrinkle on this whole deal for centuries with the concept of Purgatory. You could call it the Afterlife's Minimum Security Prison, where the sinners had their second shot at redemption after death after purging themselves of the sins still hanging on their rap-sheet.

WTF IS it about Catholics? You already have SEVEN ways that you can get into Heavan no matter WHAT you do and I did not know they had yet ANOTHER way after death to get into Heavan
GodDamn!(pun-intended) Got some Sinners there don't we?

See, the advantages of a Roman Papacy with the Divine Franchise License?

Brought to you by the same Church which gave the world Papal Indulgences and had Rodrigo Borgia for a Pope.

[Lagmonster]

WTF IS it about Catholics? You already have SEVEN ways that you can get into Heavan no matter WHAT you do and I did not know they had yet ANOTHER way after death to get into Heavan
GodDamn!(pun-intended) Got some Sinners there don't we?

Har. Think of it this way: The political world used to bow to Rome. However, the papacy had the problem of having to control and condone kings who were total assholes. So it would make sense to create a system whereby you could be a king, screw over some country, and still be guaranteed a shot into heaven because you cleared your actions by the Pope first (and gave him lots of money and acknowledgements). That let Rome keep its political weight looming over the world while at the same time finding excuses for some of the violent idiots that actually ran it.

[Mr Bean]

I have a Cathloic Friend(Remeber the Crazy guy who wants to devople the virusus based of the flu?) Anyway he brought to my attention the seven ways and even though he is a devote Scientist he always stayed Catholic, one to make his parents happy and two as he loved to say it for insurance

[Justforfun000]

I have a different version of this that I thought up a few months ago....

God is omniscient. He knows everything about the past present and future.

Because he knows what the future WILL be, there is fate.

Because there is fate we are all bound to what god knows we will do. Therefore, there is no free will.


Therefore, belief in an omniscient God excludes the existance of free-will and belief in free will excludes the existance of an omniscient God.

I'd love to see how a creationist could reconcile this with the ol'
"God gave us free will bit" when they're clearly contradictory.

Actually to play devils advocate I CAN give you a reasonable reconciliation of these two viewpoints.

God created man, among other things, however man was the one thing created with free will. So that being the case, only when man CHOOSES a path does God then know the outcome of that decision.

See? The action has to be chosen first before the result can be foreseen by God. Makes sense, and solves the problem.

[Alferd Packer]

Actually to play devils advocate I CAN give you a reasonable reconciliation of these two viewpoints.

God created man, among other things, however man was the one thing created with free will. So that being the case, only when man CHOOSES a path does God then know the outcome of that decision.

See? The action has to be chosen first before the result can be foreseen by God. Makes sense, and solves the problem.

Actually, although it makes sense, it doesn't solve the problem. God, in his example, knows absolutely everything. This statement alone precludes the existance of free will in any form. It's usually unwise to talk in absolutes, but when you're dealing with a hypothetical scale such as God, it's the only way to fly, baby.

If God exists, free will cannot.

If free will exists, God cannot.

It's sorta like in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Trilogy (of six books, heh): The answer to the universe is 42. Knowing the answer, however, precludes knowing what the question is. If you know what the question is, you can't know the answer. Knowing one prevents knowledge of the other. Douglas Adams sure is fun to read, ain't he?

[Justforfun000]

Actually, although it makes sense, it doesn't solve the problem. God, in his example, knows absolutely everything. This statement alone precludes the existance of free will in any form. It's usually unwise to talk in absolutes, but when you're dealing with a hypothetical scale such as God, it's the only way to fly, baby.

If God exists, free will cannot.

If free will exists, God cannot.

Well I suppose based on his example you could say this. However if you take the bible at BEST metaphorically, then it could still be argued.

2 things could be said:

One is that the Bible already admits God does not know everything that WILL happen. One of the first examples is when it says the God repented that he had made man. He obviously didn't know what they going to do with their choices.

Second is that the reasoning for this could be given by this explanation, which is accepted by some denominations of Christianity:
God created human beings as seperate but equal portions of himself. Same analogy would be cells in our body. So every individual entity has free will to choose his/her course, and being part of God, will either harmonize with or separate from. Another good analogy would be healthy cells and cancerous cells. So this would mean that God is only as omniscient as is possible regarding the PRESENT and what has led up to that. Until a human being has done something in the present to SET a course, ergo: performed an action, it is simply not in existence and hence not reality. But when the course is chosen, then the reality is there waiting to be fulfilled based on the path chosen. Which can be altered a million ways always. We're a steady stream of the possible future becoming the past.

It's fun playing devils advocate. I wonder if i'm losing the fundamentalists though?

[Alferd Packer]

It doesn't work that way, however. You can't be partially omniscient or omnipotent. It's like qualifying 'unique.' Nothing is very unique, or sorta unique; it is unique, or it isn't. The same thing goes for God; if God exists as was presented in the example above, then he is all-knowing. Completely and absolutely. No if, ands, or buts about it. Because of this, we, and all other life forms cannot have free will. It's gonna happen because God knows it's gonna happen. If God doesn't know, then he's not God, but something akin to Q or the Greek or Roman Gods.

[Justforfun000]

It doesn't work that way, however. You can't be partially omniscient or omnipotent.

if God exists as was presented in the example above, then he is all-knowing. Completely and absolutely. No if, ands, or buts about it. Because of this, we, and all other life forms cannot have free will. It's gonna happen because God knows it's gonna happen. If God doesn't know, then he's not God, but something akin to Q or the Greek or Roman Gods.

This is why anyone who thinks for a second that it could be as simple as the scenario we've been discussing, is not evaluating the basic veracity of such a claim.

However I do disagree with you in a purely theoretical sense regarding this omniscience capability. I think it can be reasonable to be limited in omniscience within the spectrum of TIME. I think as the one single qualifying factor that naturally has to be present, (no pun intended), I think it's reasonable to logically explain the contradiction within the framework I laid out.

This being a purely semantic exercise. I don't care how the bible really meant it.