Counter-argument to the free will apologetics

[PickelledEggs]

I would ask, does this freedom go unchecked in the absolute sense, or does God keep tabs on it and intervenes sometimes?

Thanks to everyone for playing devil's advocate :)

If God feels the need to intervene he will. God is omnipotent and omnipresent. So he not only keeps tabs, but knows when it's right to intervene. Sometimes he will... Like in near death experiences. That is when free will goes against his will.



Sent via your mom.

[ClareTherese]

No you don't. The Great Commission:

It doesn't say "ask them if they are interested" It assumes that they need to be converted. That in itself is contradictory to free will. Evidence? Try the genocidal actions of the Catholic church, the Russian Episcopal church and every other group, including Dominican friars that enslaved natives to dig gold for them. They were not given a choice.

Free will is based on the concept of choosing between options. If your option is believe in me or perish, that is not an option and that is not free will. And god does not honor choices. The people of Noah's time chose not to worship him, so he destroyed the entirety of the human race.

All that passage says is go and spread the good word of God not go kill your neighbors who don't believe. Even then they have a choice on whether to or not. The decisions by some to go and take part in the crusades and the molesting of children chose to go do that, etc. The faith is either twisted for someone's own ends or it's flat out contradicted by these people.

[stromboli]

All that passage says is go and spread the good word of God not go kill your neighbors who don't believe. Even then they have a choice on whether to or not. The decisions by some to go and take part in the crusades and the molesting of children chose to go do that, etc. The faith is either twisted for someone's own ends or it's flat out contradicted by these people.

good intentions vs historical fact. The Pope of Rome in the middle Ages had no problem issuing genocidal edicts angains the Jews and anyone considered not catholic. Right up to and into the 20th century genicidal acts were being committed in the name of god. The decisions by some? The entire continent of Africa was essentially taken over and most pagan religions abolished by Europeans.  The pogroms against the Jews by the Russian Orthodox church. The current persecution of gays in Uganda at the behest of a fundamentalist evangelical preacher.

You don't understand the difference between a suggestion and a mandate.

[ClareTherese]

good intentions vs historical fact. The Pope of Rome in the middle Ages had no problem issuing genocidal edicts angains the Jews and anyone considered not catholic. Right up to and into the 20th century genicidal acts were being committed in the name of god. The decisions by some? The entire continent of Africa was essentially taken over and most pagan religions abolished by Europeans.  The pogroms against the Jews by the Russian Orthodox church. The current persecution of gays in Uganda at the behest of a fundamentalist evangelical preacher.

You don't understand the difference between a suggestion and a mandate.

Person(s), imperfect person(s) issued such things in the name of God. God did not order them Himself. The terrible and wrong choices committed by people take nothing away from the good message of Jesus. Why would it?

[PringleTree]

A question regarding free will.  God is said to have drowned everyone (save Noah and his family) because of their wickedness.  However, if mankind has free will then by definition each of the individuals drowned had the potential to change his life in the future and become "righteous" like Noah.  If free will means so much to God, then it seems to me an unresolvable contradiction that
he killed off everyone and didn't allow them a future in which they could exercise it.

Would the apologetic response to this be that God being omniscient knows that the people he drowned were never going to exercise their free will for good and thereby move away from their wickedness?

I am a comfortable long-time atheist, and I just have never had an interest in the mental gymnastics of the apologetics field.

[PringleTree]

Some people definitely are more moral the others. Therefore God would punish those that are morally deficient and unable to change. Not only to save them from themselves but to save those around them. When your moral compass is lost, not only will you be punished by God but also by man. It is a absolute fact that what goes around comes around. There is no "relative" evil. Evil is just evil and it's clear to see as day.

But that's just it, God doesn't intervene to save people from themselves and to save those around them. If he did, Hitler wouldn't have seen 1937.  God allows evil/suffering to exist.  To intervene would interfere with exercising of free will (so they say).

[Hijiri Byakuren]

God's a prankster.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yA7HUlJsW8

[Shol'va]

If God feels the need to intervene he will. God is omnipotent and omnipresent. So he not only keeps tabs, but knows when it's right to intervene. Sometimes he will... Like in near death experiences. That is when free will goes against his will.

And that is exactly the conundrum I was pointing to. By raising the "free will" argument to explain the problem of evil, you end up in the situation of essentially saying "I have no idea what I'm talking about", since the only honest answer is "God works in mysterious ways", and "God has a plan" when God intervenes in some cases to do good and violate free will, and in other cases does not violate free will and lets evil go unabated. The question follows, what is the standard, or what is the criteria, or the QUOTA of evil in balance with good, necessary? Wouldn't one murder a year be sufficient? What is the basis for so much suffering?
There is no explanatory power in the proposition of "free will", since we already established God can and does violate the principle when God sees fit. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to argue exactly like Keanu Reeves said in the role of Constantine: "God is a kid with an ant farm", and therefore the "God is good" argument is utterly unpersuasive.

[PickelledEggs]

*goes in to full poe mode*

That may seem that way, but:
The fact is, God is powerful enough to give us free will and is wise enough to let us find enlightenment on our own. God knows that many of us won't even make it in to heaven and he even knows which of us it will be. That is beauty and divine-ness of his power. He exists outside our mortal space, time, and logic. Yes god is all powerful and all knowing, and it may seem that if this was true, there wouldn't be problems to start out with, but haven't you considered that God is the kind of being that likes to see a gradual movement from savagery to divinity in us humans as a race? What is the point of making something if you make it and then it's done? Some things are best savored over a period of time.

[PickelledEggs]

This is why we can never win against a stubborn theist like the ones in our examples

We only use our logic with facts that are testable and provable. We are fine with that. We don't make any claims that aren't able to be proven and don't have weight to them, but that is the biggest disconnect. If you can't convince someone that believes in anything supernatural to not claim things that aren't provable and the problem with it you get an argument that is only backed up by facts vs an argument that is backed up by imagination. Facts are limited, but imagination can be limitless. and that is where we will lose almost EVERY argument. If someone has an unlimited supply of an argument against your limited supply of rebuttals, they are going to be convinced they are the winners no matter how invalid their argument or what they think is their evidence is.

[Shol'va]

PickelledEggs, dude, don't go full retard on me man!

[ClareTherese]

*goes in to full poe mode*

That may seem that way, but:
The fact is, God is powerful enough to give us free will and is wise enough to let us find enlightenment on our own. God knows that many of us won't even make it in to heaven and he even knows which of us it will be. That is beauty and divine-ness of his power. He exists outside our mortal space, time, and logic. Yes god is all powerful and all knowing, and it may seem that if this was true, there wouldn't be problems to start out with, but haven't you considered that God is the kind of being that likes to see a gradual movement from savagery to divinity in us humans as a race? What is the point of making something if you make it and then it's done? Some things are best savored over a period of time.

It's a very old question and one that I share with non-believers. I know there's an answer and I know it's one that would make sense. I also believe even if God told us today we wouldn't be able to comprehend it with our finite minds. As much as we try to answer this we won't be able to. I may not understand God's design but I've been a recipient of His love and care. So, I know I'm in good hands and I have no sense of worry.

[PickelledEggs]

PickelledEggs, dude, don't go full retard on me man!

lol You don't have to worry about that.

[Jesus]

Free will is but an illusion when interpreted through the biblical lens. It is a contradiction within itself in that we as a people are granted the ability to determine our actions (and act upon them), but are punished for doing so.

Such a blatant belief is tantamount to giving a man two options: to enter into slavery for the rest of his life, or to die. Neither of these choices are founded on free will, but rather on the fact that one's consequences will outweigh the other.


So in my mind's eye the one committing the harmful deed on the victim is intrusive on another's free-will, and therefore is in the wrong and must be punished. The perpetrator may argue that the punishment is unjustified and that it is violating his intrinsic right of free-will, and although that may be true the victim takes precedence in this matter and is upheld justly.


I myself follow a very simple rule that is rather flexible for most situations (though not all). We have the ability to live our lives freely--to act on our desires--as long as it does not impact the free will of another person. Therefore murder, robbery, mental and physical abuse, and other crimes are instigators of my concept of "free-will" and are considered intrusive. My stance on religion is parallel: you choose what you want to believe in and leave me alone. I can be friends with theists (my best friend is Muslim) and we hold each other in a very mutual sense of respect. I listen to her rant about the restraints of Islam (very restrictive on women) and I sympathize. Why shouldn't I? A person is entitled to his or her own opinion regardless of how illogical it may seem to us. I won't try to persuade her to become atheistic because I know how important family is to her, and if a choice of family or freedom was lain before her she'd choose the former for the sake of preserving familial relations.

[PickelledEggs]

Jesus was a cute asian girl.... Who knew???