Board index ‹ The Problem of Evil and Suffering

[Dominator]

So we never actually have free will. Our only free will is to no agree and burn in hell. That’s a choice?

[jimwalton]

Wrong again. We actually have genuine, authentic free will. Just because there are consequences to our choices doesn't mean they aren't real choices.

[Dominator]

If we are punished for making the wrong choice it is not free will.

[jimwalton]

Wait a minute. So you're saying that if a thief is punished for making the wrong choice and stealing something, he didn't have free will when he stole it? That if someone gets angry or jealous and makes the wrong choice and murders someone, if we punish him or her for that, it proves he or she didn't have free will in the first place? How does it begin to make sense that if someone is punished for making the wrong choice, it was not free will?

A person stalks a woman, attacks and rapes her. Bad choice. Wrong choice. If we punish him, he didn't have free will????

[Dominator]

An earthly crime is in no way comparable to a crime against god. That’s a false equivalency

[jimwalton]

Truth is truth. The arena doesn't change truth. Gravity works just as well in a tower as in a pit. A person who makes a choice in the physical realm is exercising the same free will as a person who makes a choice in the spiritual realm. Truth is truth, a choice is a choice. There's no false equivalency about it. And besides, we're not talking about crime, we're talking about free will.

If I give you a math problem about two trains traveling at different speeds and asking you to calculate when one will catch the other, you can't complain, "But one is an older train!" Um, we're not really discussing the trains. What we're discussing is velocity and time.

The conversation is free will. Whether we're talking about an earthly crime or a crime against God doesn't change the truth about free will. What we're discussing is free will.

[Dominator]

If my actions have weight that will only lead to 2 places, one good and one bad, you don’t have free will. If I hold a gun to your head and tell you to do something, you don’t have free will. Free will is no gun to our head and giving us the ability to make our own choices without the knowledge of a gods existence

[jimwalton]

A limit on the possible consequences doesn't negate free will. A choice is still a choice, and it is still free. You can't set an arbitrary standard (there have to be at least 3 possible consequences or it isn't a freewill choice) to suit your opinion.

A kamikaze pilot in the Pacific during WWII has two choices: defy his commander and live in shame the rest of his life, or fly his plane into the enemy warship and die. He has free will to choose as he wishes, despite that both choices have negative consequences.

Aron Ralston, climber, in 2003 fell off the rock face and was hopelessly trapped. He had a choice to cut off his own arm or to die. You would claim he did not have free will at that point, but he obviously did, and he made a free will decision. He had free will to choose as he wished, despite that both choices have negative consequences.

In "The Last of the Mohicans" (1992 movie), the girl was captured and was to be made the bride of the Mohican chief. Standing near a cliff's edge, she realized she had a free will choice to be raped by the chief or to suicide. You would say she didn't have free will, but she obviously did. A different person might have chosen differently than she did, and that's the point. She made her choice and threw herself off the cliff onto the rocks below. Her actions had weight that would only lead to one of two places, and she had a choice to make. She had free will.

As far as your life and your eternal destiny, you have a choice to make. A limit on the possible consequences doesn't negate free will. A choice is still a choice, and it is still free.

[Dominator]

If your choices are limited it's not free will. Free will would be the option to walk away from any of that if they wished.

[jimwalton]

Well, you know I disagree with you, and I've shown you theoretically, logically, and practically how it's still a choice. In a real world, your choices are always limited. The freedom to walk away is just as much of a choice as the freedom to engage one of the choices. It's all free will.

But your real issue is God and Hell, so let's focus there. You seem to think there are only two choices: Fake a belief in a god or be consigned to Hell, which in your mind is not a choice, because faking a belief isn't anything real, so you are stuck with only one fate: consigned to Hell, and therefore, no choice. But this is not accurate. There's a third choice.

You could, with an open mind, free thinking, and objective perspective consider deeply all the evidence that is posited for the existence of God and the truth of Christianity. If you do that (or have already done that), then you have a legitimate choice: believe that evidence or reject that evidence, knowing that either course of action has significant consequences. And if you just are not convinced by the evidence for theism and Christianity, then that's the choice you are making. You are still using your free will to assess evidence and give weight to arguments, you are using your free will to consider alternatives and reason through them at every possible angle, and using your free will to choose A or B, knowing what the consequences of that decision will be. It's all free will.