You have shifted the argument here from free will without causing evil to free will without disobeying God.
Do not agree there is any shift at all, in fact my point was it is the same thing. In the Christian view of the world this is an illogical statement. God is Good, the opposite is evil. Choosing to disobey God is choosing evil. So from that view, the will is not free if one cannot choose to disobey God, which means to choose evil.
If we were in a universe in which we had free will but no evil could come of our choices, then the idea of a law mandated by God would become irrelevant. Our actions could not cause evil, so God would not need to create any rules to obey or disobey.
Correct in as far as that goes. Could God have made such a world where either such physics are possible or where we have magic force fields protecting us – God can do anything, so yes He could have. But that does not address my motives or my thoughts in say wanting to throw something at someone. As far as good and evil go, my thoughts must at least be considered. So no matter what the physical outcome in this alternate universe or whether I even carry out the thought, we also have to consider whether that thought alone can represent evil. Most of us would have to say, at least in some cases/instances, that yes such thoughts are evil, especially when we dwell on them.Rules/laws are meant only to help us. If I drive the speed limit, but too fast for the current existing conditions (whatever that may be) the fact I am obeying the law is irrelevant. Biblical example; rule - do not kill people. Ok most of us don’t do that now ever (BTW many people did in their lifetime when this rule was first given). But when we look deeper many of the things we all do daily in some sense “kills” our neighbor and these things are evil, disobeying God, sin. So “keeping rules or laws” are never as simple as asking did I murder anybody today, the “rules” are only very basic starting points, a guide for how we are to live. The “idea of laws” as you suggest, is a part of the way God initially dealt with a very cruel and evil world. A world which got that way because of us our actions, not God’s. If you follow the progression, Jesus (God in the Flesh) basically said at the beginning of Christianity; if you love God and one another, all these “laws” are meaningless.
First off, it's curious that you seem so intent about our ability to disobey God and do evil things as being a good thing that we don't want to sacrifice. You claim that our free will is the one thing that makes our current world preferable to a paradise, but you have defined free will purely in terms of disobeying God. Doesn't that strike you as strange?Second, God could have made us immune to all harm, so throwing an apple at someone or trying (futilely) to take their eye out would not be an evil act.
I never said this world was preferable to paradise, that would be silly. Equally silly as suggested earlier would be suggesting that a magical universe where my harmful actions/choices in this world could never cause harm in this alternative magic universe is preferable. It does not address my motive/thoughts. I also do not think our abilities (free will being one) are something we can choose to sacrifice as if we could give it up. We either align our will with God (Good) or align it against Him (Evil). We do not give up our free will in becoming Christians, nor do we stop sinning. Also said our will would not be free if that will was not free to choose to disobey God. You suggest God could have made it so, and I believe I mentioned earlier that yes He could have - by not giving us free will. I would argue that such beings would no longer be “human”. The “humans” we know have free will and we freely choose to do evil, sometimes great evil. Could God have created such beings, beings like us that have no free will? Sure, God can do anything. However I think some philosophers (ancients and perhaps even a few today) have/could make a good case for it being unjust to create beings with superior intellect without also giving them free will and God cannot do that which is unjust. So yes I think it is a good thing that beings with intellect such as humans should have free will. Animals do not have free will and it would be beneath our dignity to not have it. Am no philosopher so explaining such things escape me, but it kind of makes sense to me that it would be so.I would agree eternal bliss is better than eternal suffering. And when put into perspective, the suffering (or joy) of this world is not even like a single breath compared to eternity. We often tend to focus on the now, not eternity. This leads us to ask WHY, even demand an answer from God at times. Job did and was even mad at God. But how does one measure/compare 1,2 or 60-120 years of even daily severe agony to the rest of eternity in perfect infinite bliss? The problem here is not the pain and suffering, but our view/perspective of it. And lacking God’s view, these are questions only He can fully answer. It is our faith and belief in His Word that things will NOT always be this way.
He could have made it uncorruptable. That would have been better, no?
Again, I think the only way to do that is remove free will and apparently philosophers have already argued that would be unjust for beings with our intellect. I side with those that feel it would be grave injustice to create a creature with our intelligence and not give it a free will.
Equating justice with punishment is awfully primitive. Isn't God supposed to be all-merciful? Wouldn't the "just" thing have been to not condemn thousands of years of people to suffering for the sins of only two people? Punishing all of mankind for Adam and Eve's sins has always struck me as one of the most unjust things I've ever heard of.
We are talking about one aspect of how it could be Just for God to make the world the way it is. I do not see that as equating Justice with punishment.We are smart, but we are not God. In our case, the entire race was tested through one Man. He failed, severing the relationship he had with God, and by our being Adam’s progeny he severed also our relationship with God. God no longer “walked” with man. We suffer for that failure, including the curse God put on the land (world) because of Adam’s failure. Is that fair or just for the rest of us? In considering the answer to that we have to consider that God also allowed for our redemption, the fact God knew Adam would fail and already had a plan for each of us to be able to restore our relationship individually.Could God have chosen to test us individually, as apparently the angels were tested? I see no reason why not, but there seems to me something to be said for our need for one another in getting through this life as well as needing each other in helping us to get successfully to the next that just seems better to me. Better than saying we all make it (or not) alone on our own (as I believe each angel has). I could see how it would be unjust if Adam’s action left us all hopeless, but it did not. While Adam removed the possibility of our being born into paradise, God provided each of us the ability to choose to restore our relationship with Him in this life in order to live eternally in paradise in the next life. As bad as this life can be, the hope of eternity in peaceful bliss needs to enter the equation.
Again, curious that you view the ability to disobey god as such a virtue. Also, I simply can't agree that the only real choices are the choices between good and evil, obeying or disobeying. You could remove that tree and Adam and Eve would still have had plenty of choices to make.
Never said it was a virtue, it is a trait of humans. But again; I do agree that creating a being with superior intellect with free will is better (Good/virtuous) as opposed to creating such beings without free will. It would be undignified, beneath us to not have free will. Never said the only choices we have are good and evil. Apparently there was only one thing Adam and Eve were told they could not do. Because God told them not to do it, then by definition doing that one thing is disobeying God, which is the opposite of obeying. God being Good, the opposite is Evil. In that case the choice is simply Good or Evil. They chose Evil. So almost exactly like the alternative world you wanted God to make, all their other choices were good, no other choice was “wrong”. What that means exactly is unclear as things have obviously changed from the world described in that story, but we know it was different before that choice. It clearly says many things changed because of their choice. Again as I suggested earlier, perhaps that “Garden” did almost resemble your magical universe where nothing could harm them and nothing they could do would cause harm (except the one thing they were warned not to do). But again I know you will ask why have that one thing? Ask God when you get there. I suspect the full answer lies in it being to His Glory that it be so. Can say that with some confidence because if that was not so then this world would be some other way than the way He made it. Making it possible for each of us to freely choose to love God seems more fitting to His Glory and potentially ours.
You have boiled this down to a binary issue, which is fallacious. The issue is not "is this just or unjust," the issue is "could this have been more good/less evil than it is?" To which the answer, I think, is clearly yes.
I would agree that had Adam not made the choice he made, that things would be much better now, infinitely better. I agree God could have made it impossible for us to screw up. I do not see how He could do that and also give us free will. Why did God allow evil has been a heated debate from the beginning. Again, I think the answer is tied with the freedom our will.
Also, one could actually argue that, given the cruelty of God's judgment, it is better not to exist. Most people wind up being condemned to spend an eternity in hell. To me, eternal suffering seems worse than non-existence. Now if I were being asked to play a game in which I had a small chance to gain eternal happiness and a big chance to suffer eternally, I would choose not to play. I don't know about you, though.
Am not at all sure how many people make it in the end or how to judge who will or will not make it. That is God’s realm. I do tend to agree with those who have long maintained that it seems more fitting for God to win the balance of mankind rather than suggesting that the devil wins more souls. Just seems right to me. We all have the same choice, am not sure to see that as unfair. Would also have to agree it would be better to not exist than to suffer eternally. But again since we are each created, Loved by God and given the same choice, it must be good that we all exist. The real question for those who do not believe in God, is why do I exist at all or a variation of it why is it better that I exist than not exist? And ultimately why do I exist? For me I think it must be Good that we each exist.
This is not what I was claiming. However, I think I've shown that, whether my position entails free will or not, it is still better than the plight God offers us. To resummarize - what is the virtue of free will if "free will" is defined in the context of disobeying God? Disobeying God can only bring us suffering, so why do we want that? What seems to be much better is a world in which no evil can be caused, and so the very notion of "disobeying God" is obsolete (because God's laws concern themselves with preventing evil, but evil would not exist, so anything would be fair game).
I did not define free will in those terms. Maybe we do not agree on what free will means. Free will in this context means my will is independent of anyone else’s will, including God’s Will. If it is not independent, then it is not a free will. I think the proof that beings with superior intellect can only rightfully be made with free will is beyond either of us to present or rebut, but you are free to object and I note many (but by no means all) modern philosophers would probably object as well.I think I would agree that in a world without free will of any beings, there would be no evil (in the right or wrong choice sense) and we could presume such a world would have no suffering (as apparently the Garden had none) otherwise we should have to ask why should these suffer and other do it, also ask how is that just. Again the intelligence of the beings in such a world would have to be addressed.
1) Viewing justice purely in terms of punishment for misdeeds is wrong. Real justice would have been forgiveness, and not condemning the rest of mankind for sins they didn't commit.
Am not certain why you would think we see Justice only in terms of punishment. Also unclear why you think our individual status with God requires Him to forgive the entire race for something He set up as a test through one man in order to call that Just. Also unclear why you would see our knowing that the one man failed that test and God still provided a means for each of us to be forgiven with Him is seeing justice “purely in terms of punishment”. Have there been times when the potential punishment for our deeds in this life have been over emphasized in a deliberate effort to scare people to God? You bet, but that was wrong, does not represent proper theology and has nothing to do with this discussion. Since the creation is corrupted by the deeds of one man, our creator would have still been Just in blotting Adam out and starting over. But He so loved us all before He made all this, that He gave His only Son to redeem us. How is that not merciful when it would have been in His right to have all of us never exist? Mankind is condemned for what Adam did, which delivers each of us at birth being in need of restoring the relationship that was lost. God provided for our redemption. That is merciful. That is a providing a means of forgiveness for us all. Ultimately for most of us our individual status in eternity is not Adam’s fault, but our own for rejecting God’s free offer, which for each of us is both Just and Merciful. He did not have to do that for us.
2) Whenever I have stated that we can have free will but live in a world in which our choices cannot produce evil, your response has been to say that free will without the option to disobey God is not free will. Why is free will defined in terms of disobeying God, and why is it good to be able to disobey God? Why is it not free will to live in a world where the only choices to make are evil-free choices?
Maybe it is just me, but saying somebody is free “except for” does not sound free to me all. Would we say someone in a communist country has free speech even though we know they cannot speak out against the government? Free will is not defined in those terms, but the two concepts are tied together. Already explained why evil and disobeying God go together. Tried to suggest, without going into proofs which I would struggle to follow let alone present, that it must be better for beings with superior intelligence to have free will than to not have it. Maybe I need to explain what free means. If I own the bar and made it a magical place where it is impossible to light up. You are free to do anything you wish in my bar. However, in what real sense could we say you are really free to smoke in my bar? God makes us for Him to Love and have us freely choose to love Him. If He made it impossible for us to choose otherwise, how can I maintain that I am free to choose to love Him. In fact, if it were otherwise we would have to say He MADE US love Him. And if not free to choose for myself, in what sense can I say my will is free to make choices. There would be no choice without the freedom to make it. Like the scorpion riding on the frog’s back to cross the flooded ditch, we would have no choice other than to be whatever we were programmed to be. So no, free will with a limit to choice is not free will.
3) Your implicit assumption that our world must be better than a world without free will is faulty. It assumes that free will itself is the primary good. I believe that happiness is the primary good, but even if you do not believe this, as a Christian you ought to believe that closeness to God is the primary good. If we want to maximize that, free will is besides the point. The fact is that God must have known free will would lead to countless people suffering for eternity, but without free will everyone would have been close to God forever.
I do think and have said our God given intelligence makes it a good thing to have also been given free will. I do not see where I suggested seeing this as true makes “free will” the “primary good”.You claim my assumption is faulty because it is assumes something. As just shown, I never said that free will is a primary good, so your claim is unsupported. You need to make another proof.The countless people suffering (in Hell) you mentioned would be in that state of their own doing. The only alternative is to not allow them to do that to themselves – which as I already stated would be to remove free will. The thought also occurs that if creation is to God’s Glory, am not sure how to see it more Glorious for us to be made (choice/free will removed – basically forced) to love Him and thereby live in bliss for eternity. How would that be more Glorious than beings which can freely make that choice? I guess we could ask how many of us was God required to redeem when Adam screwed it up for all of us? From our view and putting God in proper perspective (Infinite vs finite), should think it merciful, a gift that we exist at all.
4) You still did not answer my point about natural evil any more than to say it was punishment for Adam's sin. Weren't all the other evils enough? Free will alone causes plenty of evil; aren't disease and natural disasters overkill?
I guess I did not offer an answer in any form you would accept. I do feel I have tried. I said it was not always this way, He did not originally make it this way and we are told it will be new again (not like it is now) one day. That is our hope. Even the youngest child beginning to comprehend justice quickly learns that as the inequality between offender and the offended increases, so does the magnitude of the offense. We are speaking of the difference between man (offender) and an Infinite Creator (offended). If slapping my brother or my mother represents a recognizable difference to us in the exact same offense, then what happens when we carry that inequality to the Infinite? I think we tend to underestimate that inequality; what it means for the pot to spit at the potter. We wish to see God like the ultimate (but still rather human) fatherly judge. While He is our Judge, I think it is a mistake to suggest there must be finite limits on the magnitude of our offenses against the Infinite. Overkill?? Again that He allows us to exist at all is ample evidence of His Mercy.
I will restate a few points in conclusion:1) Viewing justice purely in terms of punishment for misdeeds is wrong. Real justice would have been forgiveness, and not condemning the rest of mankind for sins they didn't commit.
As noted before, I do not agree we have presented a view of Justice in terms of purely punishment. We do have forgiveness, the fact we exist at all and have the opportunity to live in happy bliss for eternity is ample evidence of God’s Mercy. We are each judged (condemned or rewarded eternally) according to our own deeds. It is the race that fell with Adam, and that fall then meaning we each are born needing the relationship with God which was lost in Adam (for us all) restored.
2) Whenever I have stated that we can have free will but live in a world in which our choices cannot produce evil, your response has been to say that free will without the option to disobey God is not free will. Why is free will defined in terms of disobeying God, and why is it good to be able to disobey God? Why is it not free will to live in a world where the only choices to make are evil-free choices?
Again this comes with first defining what is evil, what free will means and whether a will that has limits either built in or for practical persons is not really free can be said to be free in any sense. It is not good to disobey God. It is good that intelligent beings have a free will.
3) Your implicit assumption that our world must be better than a world without free will is faulty. It assumes that free will itself is the primary good. I believe that happiness is the primary good, but even if you do not believe this, as a Christian you ought to believe that closeness to God is the primary good. If we want to maximize that, free will is besides the point. The fact is that God must have known free will would lead to countless people suffering for eternity, but without free will everyone would have been close to God forever.
Never said free will is the primary good, it is not. I did say it is a good thing for intelligent beings (like angels and men) to have free will. One cannot look at what God did in allowing free will including the resulting suffering from allowing it, without also looking at what He did in allowing for our redemption from the resulting evil. Of course He saw the consequences of giving us free will and He had a plan for being able to restore everything, making it all right again. Everyone that chooses can be close to God for eternity.If you are asking why do I see that as better than Him not giving us free will? Two reasons, one if He could have made a better world then being God He would have done so. On faith then in who He is, I accept this is the best possible world He could have made or it would be different. The other reason is that I believe what I have read regarding free will and intelligent beings, that it is better we have it than not. I can see we will never agree, but hopefully you can at least properly present my position now.
