Board index ‹ Free Will

[Book Mitten]

>>>> What is revelation?
>>> It is simply God revealing Himself to us. Based on the record of Scripture, it's almost different every time (A burning bush, a pillar of fire, audible words, something visible like a vision, etc.).
>>How do you know you have encountered it?
>God generally confirmed his theophanies with some sort of sign manifestation (Moses's rod turning into a snake, a predicted historic event [the walls of Jericho falling], etc.).

These things are what I would put under experience.

[jimwalton]

It's impossible for revelation to humans not to pass through the human senses and mind as experiences. God can't reveal Himself to a human and still bypass the human. How is it possible that God would reveal Himself to us in a way that is not experienced by us?

[Book Mitten]

> Even our own system of justice allows for accidental homicide, involuntary manslaughter, self-defense, and a host of other categories. Where's the faulty predicate with God?

The fault is with the fact that human justice systems work with incomplete knowledge and imperfect personalities. If God has perfect knowledge he would be better equipped to assess the best course of action in any given situation. Thus if a criminal honestly believes they are doing good (or in the case of some criminals are mentally ill) then why does God punish them based on this? Wouldn't it be better for him to speak directly to them (through whatever method of revelation) to convince them to do otherwise?

[jimwalton]

> The fault is with the fact that human justice systems work with incomplete knowledge and imperfect personalities. If God has perfect knowledge he would be better equipped to assess the best course of action in any given situation.

Correct, and agreed. Since God has perfect knowledge, He is supremely equipped to assess the best course of action in any given situation. Still no faulty predicate.

> Thus if a criminal honestly believes they are doing good (or in the case of some criminals are mentally ill) then why does God punish them based on this?

God will take these matters into consideration. What makes you think God will punish a mentally ill person as if they were not mentally ill? From where does that assumption come?

"Thus if a criminal honestly believes they are doing good"—you mean, like, Hitler, who thought he was doing good for the world by eliminating handicaps, blacks, and Jews?

> Wouldn't it be better for him to speak directly to them (through whatever method of revelation) to convince them to do otherwise?

We see God doing this with Cain (Gn. 4.6-7) to no avail. We see God doing this with Pharaoh (Ex. 1-12), to no avail. It works when God does it with Abimelech (Gn. 20.3-10ff.). It turns out it's the condition of the person's heart, not how directly God speaks to him (through whatever method of revelation). Again, the person is always the one who decides. They are free agents, even in the face of God's revelation.

I still don't see the "faulty predicate" with God.

[Book Mitten]

> We see God doing this with Cain (Gn. 4.6-7) to no avail. We see God doing this with Pharaoh (Ex. 1-12), to no avail. It works when God does it with Abimelech (Gn. 20.3-10ff.). It turns out it's the condition of the person's heart, not how directly God speaks to him (through whatever method of revelation). Again, the person is always the one who decides. They are free agents, even in the face of God's revelation.

Some people receive no revelation at all, and stray away from God as a result. If they had at least some revelation, they would respond differently. I include myself in this. Some still might reject God, but I think many who hadn't recognised or been in touch with him would act differently if they had.

In addition, you say the problem is the condition of the person's heart whilst also saying they are free agents. Isn't this a contradiction?

> "Thus if a criminal honestly believes they are doing good"—you mean, like, Hitler, who thought he was doing good for the world by eliminating handicaps, blacks, and Jews?

Well there's other criminals apart from Hitler. I suspect he did think he was making the world a better place, even though he was making it much worse. In any case, he's not the only criminal we can focus on.

> From where does that assumption come?

It comes from my doubt and mistrust based on what I observe. God seems to sit back and watch as bad things happen. Obviously you've said he will take it into consideration, but I think it would be better to prevent it in this world rather than waiting until the next.

> Correct, and agreed. Since God has perfect knowledge, He is supremely equipped to assess the best course of action in any given situation. Still no faulty predicate.

What I'm referring to is the fact that he seems to let people in his world slip into deception or being mistaken. Some people will do wrong through ignorance or imperfect character. You might say that God will be fair with all. My scepticism of that is based on my belief that this world contains things that should not exist, and thus that God is either not omnibenevolent or not omnipotent.

[jimwalton]

> Some people receive no revelation at all, and stray away from God as a result.

The Bible says we have all received revelation of one kind or another. Sure, they're not all the same for all of us, but we all get something. As for you, if nothing else you've had this conversation. But I'm sure there have been other things. There are always things in life that turn one's thoughts to wondering about God and wondering if some experience or other was God revealing Himself to us.

> you say the problem is the condition of the person's heart whilst also saying they are free agents. Isn't this a contradiction?

It's not a contradiction because the condition of a person's heart is at least partially due to his or her free-will decisions. We're not just the result of our experiences or circumstances; we are also the result of our decisions.

> Well there's other criminals apart from Hitler.

I know. Hitler was just an easy and obvious one here. It's hard to assess the motives of people. For instance, the leaders who were responsible for the genocidal "cleansing" in Rwanda. Were they just hateful jerks or did they think they were doing the world a favor? I dunno. Probably some of each. Then again, I'd have to ask how many criminals sincerely think they are doing good with their robberies, rapes, murders, etc. It's not a statistic that exists, as far as I know, but I would sense most criminals are just after doing something they think will enhance themselves (wealth, power) or they just like the rush of the game.

> he seems to let people in his world slip into deception or being mistaken.

God created the human mind to be a marvelous thing—close to miraculous. What we are capable of in imagination, science, art, etc. is simply stunning. If God were to intervene in our free will to restrain any deception or mistakenness, I'm sure there are predictable harmful ramifications of such a strategy. If you're talking about any kind of deception (science, on a jury, misinterpreting someone's body language, sales, etc.), God pretty much would have to regulate every single thing we think, and we're back to being robots, not humans.

> Some people will do wrong through ignorance or imperfect character.

I agree, but since none of us is omniscient or flawless, it's safe to say that the only way to avoid this is if we were all divine.

> My scepticism of that is based on my belief that this world contains things that should not exist, and thus that God is either not omnibenevolent or not omnipotent.

In any world God would create where there is life, there will inevitably be biologically useful unpleasant sensations, such as pain to motivate us to avoid harm (as from a fire, for instance), suffocation when choked (by food or smoke, for instance), and fear (necessary for survival). And since humans (again, necessary for survival as well as for beneficial relationships) have the ability to determine at least some of the situation of another, we also necessarily have to power to create good but also significant hurt and suffering. Evil comes with the good. It is logically impossible for God to give certain benefits (personal responsibility and choice of destiny) without the inevitability or at least probability of various accompany evils. An omnibenevolent and omnipotent God would have reason to create a world in which there were people with a choice of destiny for self and others, along with responsibility for oneself and others, despite the evils that would inevitably or almost inevitably be part of that world, for the sake of the good it contained.

[Book Mitten]

> It's not a contradiction because the condition of a person's heart is at least partially due to his or her free-will decisions. We're not just the result of our experiences or circumstances; we are also the result of our decisions.

I agree, but our decisions come from somewhere. We don't make decisions arbitrarily, at least in many situations. You say the condition of their heart is "at least partially" due to decisions. Wouldn't this imply that their heart might be the thing that sets their decisions rolling? That perhaps this factor is at base the most compelling, to some, at least.

>> Some people will do wrong through ignorance or imperfect character.
> I agree, but since none of us is omniscient or flawless, it's safe to say that the only way to avoid this is if we were all divine.

Doesn't this seem to necessitate a state of imperfection to such a degree that evil comes as an inevitable consequence?

More to come, but here's some questions for now.

[jimwalton]

> but our decisions come from somewhere.

Of course they do. They are complex clusters of genetics (personality, makeup), experiences, viscera, training, and volition.

> Wouldn't this imply that their heart might be the thing that sets their decisions rolling?

I don't think this is possible. If I sit here in all sincerity, calming my mind and entering a state of relaxed anticipation, waiting for my heart to set things rolling, I'll be here until the day I die. Instead, it's my conscious mind that is the initiator.

> Doesn't this seem to necessitate a state of imperfection to such a degree that evil comes as an inevitable consequence?

I would agree with this. The Bible sees us as "not divine," and therefore in a state of incompletion and imperfection. We need God. We need help. Actually, we need a Savior. The Bible is quite clear that evil comes to us easily and quickly. When we from God launch out on our own, Gn. 3 shows misdirected self-assurance in our own capabilities, Gn. 4 shows destructive relationships, Gn. 5 shows a litany of death and more violence, and by the time we get to Gn. 6 there is total breakdown to the point where the system needs to be reordered and the ledgers need to be rebalanced. Humanity is not capable of navigating life and history without divine help.

Even now we see the country's itch for justice and some sense of "rightness" playing itself out every day: open borders, a homeless crisis in California cities, impeachment, election interference, quid pro quo, Trump obstructs Congress, Pelosi obstructs Senate, rising Anti-Semitism, nuclear threat, Brexit, and on it goes. Our imperfection is obvious. We need a true voice of wisdom, an authentic global sense of morality, justice on every level, economic fairness and redistribution of wealth, environmental integrity, and political purgation.

But even more seriously, we each need personal calibration. Our hearts have elements that lead us astray. Our minds are too easily misdirected. Despite noble attempts, we all subscribe to some things that are not true. The spiritual element of our lives too easily settles for a complacent or self-affirming answer, not pushing into the uncomfortable, muddy areas where the messy truth resides. These natural and self-generated tendencies (experiences, heart, mind) separate us from God, and we need a Savior. He is our only hope.

[Book Mitten]

> The Bible sees us as "not divine," and therefore in a state of incompletion and imperfection. We need God. We need help. Actually, we need a Savior. The Bible is quite clear that evil comes to us easily and quickly. When we from God launch out on our own, Gn. 3 shows misdirected self-assurance in our own capabilities, Gn. 4 shows destructive relationships, Gn. 5 shows a litany of death and more violence, and by the time we get to Gn. 6 there is total breakdown to the point where the system needs to be reordered and the ledgers need to be rebalanced. Humanity is not capable of navigating life and history without divine help.

Why then does God punish, if the aforementioned is an inevitable circumstance?

> I don't think this is possible. If I sit here in all sincerity, calming my mind and entering a state of relaxed anticipation, waiting for my heart to set things rolling, I'll be here until the day I die. Instead, it's my conscious mind that is the initiator.

That's why I think motion and flux are a big part of who we are, including the heart. I'm not talking about waiting for things to start happening. Neither am I saying that our conscious minds don't have an influence. They do. What I'm saying is that we can't help but not think, (as well as being influenced by our hearts; the heart is one factor as well) and we can't help but want to do certain things. Obviously we can make efforts to change our perspective of things, but that effort comes from a state of inclination itself.

I'll ask another question to try to go forward with the discussion. You say that the potential for evil gives the possibility of "meaning" or "value" in the sense of us being in a position to go towards God of our own accord (as well as doing good of our own accord).

My question is: if this is for the sake of argument true, why are there then people who have little or no chance to be engaged with the world in this way? For every (or many) case of people who suffer hardships that theodicy would justify ("They may suffer evil, but a greater good is brought out of it") There will be a person that doesn't have the opportunity or space to be connected to this greater good.

[jimwalton]

> Why then does God punish, if the aforementioned is an inevitable circumstance?

God punishes because we are free agents making morally culpable choices. God reveals Himself to us in our state of incompletion and imperfection, and it's possible not only to see the value of turning to God for salvation but also to realistically turn to Him. When a person does that, God indwells that person and redeems him/her. Because the revelation of God is sufficient and efficacious, and because the rejection of God is intentional, people are accountable for their choices. Even though my flaws are inevitable, my rejection of the solution (salvation in God) is not.

> Obviously we can make efforts to change our perspective of things, but that effort comes from a state of inclination itself.

If this is the case, we exist in a state of an infinite series that never arrives at a point of action. Our inclinations come from our consciousness that comes from our inclinations that come from our consciousness that come from... Some power or force must be able to be the first cause of our decisions and actions, to break the series and do something.

> why are there then people who have little or no chance to be engaged with the world in this way?

It seems to me that the strength of your case or thought here is contingent on knowing how many (or what percentage) of people you are talking about—something which I consider to be unknowable.

My perspective on evil in the world never claims that all evil is individually justifiable, but that there is enough good that may come, or purpose in it, or something that can be learned from it, and that our ability to know everything there is to know about it is so restrictfully limited, that we are no position to judge that a single (or "many") examples that seem to be represented by "have little or no chance to be engaged with the world in this way" is representative of the majority. In other words, there is greater good than evil in the balance of all things (by which I mean all things). Our confusion, frustration, or downright anger about some of what we see doesn't mean that all evil is unjustifiable. The presence of some people having little or no chance to be engaged with the world in this way doesn't negate the general principles of (1) the presence of evil doesn't negate the existence of an omnipotent or omnibenevolent God, (2) that evil has a role to play, or (3) that free will toward evil is essential to our humanity.

> For every (or many) case of people who suffer hardships that theodicy would justify ("They may suffer evil, but a greater good is brought out of it") There will be a person that doesn't have the opportunity or space to be connected to this greater good.

I agree that we are not in a position to accurately evaluate every instance of evil, and I would never claim that we can examine every instance of evil and be able to identify the greater good. That's above our pay grade, and possibly not even true. But to carry your point, you would have to be able to show that every hardship (or even a majority) is unjustifiable, and I know that's an impossible case.