You, a Christian -- or a member of a similar religion -- believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God that created the universe. You think that this God could have and would have made the world perfect, being that God is perfect. Since the world is certainly not perfect -- that is, that it has evils in it -- apologists search for reasons to justify worldly evils. The more common claim is that these evils are due to humans exercising their God-given free will.
This has several poor implications. Firstly,what is free will?By using those words, does it mean that we are free (as in at liberty) to will (as in to wish or desire)? Being at liberty to desire things does not seem like an interesting property -- at least, not one that is worth arguing about -- and it does not go against the laws of a determinist universe. Perhaps "free" means that it is free from causality, meaning it runs contrary to determinism. Does that mean that will is random? If it is uncaused, then it is uncontrollable by humans, and thusly, not a good thing in the least. In fact, there is no adequate definition of free will.
A second problem ishow do you know that you even have a free will?Could this freedom be nothing more than an illusion? How can it be that the universe must follow tangible, causal laws, yet that is supposed to stop once inside one's head? Even with a second substance, if this substance isn't run by determinstic laws, then is it random, and thus not a good thing yet again?
A third problem isan omniscient God. If God knows everything, then He can never be wrong about his knowledge; that is, all that he knows must be true. Then, as an all-knowing being, God knows what you will do at before you know of the situation for which you will make a decision for. When this event happens, it can happen just one way, and not contrary to what God knows you will do. At that point, your decision is an illusion because of your ignorance to the causes.
The fourth problem is that human actions don't cause tsunamis or other natural disasters: blaming humans for an earthquake or volcanic eruption is, in fact, fool-hardy.
Supposing that you can adequately answer these problems; that you find a good definition of free will; that you demonstrate we have free will; that God's omniscience does not run contrary to free will; that, somehow, free will is responsible for natural disasters, there is still one more problem:does God have a free will?
Let's look at two hypothetical situations. Suppose God does not have a free will,also supposing that free will is a power and a good thing to have. If God is all-powerful, He must have then all possible powers. If free will is a power, but God does not have it, then it is a power that cannot be had. Thus, humans cannot have it. Furthermore, if God is all good, and if free will is good and God does not have it, then humans cannot have it, for then humans would have something that God does not; the same if humans had a power that God did not: that is contrary to the definition of God. How can a being give something that it does not have? It is clear that if God does not have a free will, then humans cannot, either.
The second case: God does have a free will. In this case, humans potentially can have free will. God is all-good and has free will. Therefore, it is possible to always do good with a free will. Humans having free will is not sufficient in humans doing evils. That is, free will is not the cause of evils: there needs to be something else. Humans could be akin to God in having free will and not doing evils, rather, goods. If free will is not the reason, then there must be something else, meaning that the free will defense is meaningless, for it does not tell us the source of evils in the world. Free will tells us nothing.
If you continue to say that free will is the cause for all the evils in the world, please remember that you are begging all the questions, and that in fact the words "free will" do not explain evils in the least. The free will argument is moot.
Written by and © 2006 Bill Baer (http://baerwcb.tripod.com/).
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
First, let me say this a great topic; it's incredibally interesting, and I agree with you 100% about not blaming humans for natural disasters. I remember getting into several big arguments at my church about that. ;) What I would like to point out to you is that just because God is all-knowing, and knows what we are going to choose, doesn't mean He forces us to choose it. My opinion is that having free will is no illusion, although you're right, we can envision scenarios in which it is--although they would all sound rather Matrix-y to my thinking. God knowing what we're going to choose is comparable to, in human terms, the expert gambler who can predict what his opponent is going to do, if he'll fold or if he's bluffing. The expert gambler will probably be right in his prediction, but he certainly didn't force his opponent to act that way (assuming he didn't stack the deck, lol). It's a poor analogy, but I think it works; only with God, it isn't just a best guess; the uncertainty is removed. Also, humans may be ignorant to the causes of many of their actions, but that goes back to the nature verses nurture argument. Besides, the Catholic Church does have an adequate definition of free will. The way it was explained to me is in the comparison of humans to dumb animals. They don't choose what to do with their lives; they're ruled entirely on impulses, feeding, mating, sleeping, everything. We choose all of those things, although sometimes circumstances outside our control mean our number of choices is limited--but the point is, the choices exist. God exists in the past, present, and future; He is the emobidment of the prefix "omni"; that's why the Bible says, Alpha and Omega. So, from the Omega perspective, He isn't just knowing, or predicting, if you like, what we'll do--He knows it because it's already happened. Sorry this is so long--it's just a topic I can really get into. :) Good writing.
Prediction is inherently not omniscient. Knowing and guessing with 99% certainty are universes apart. If God knows without doubt than there is no way we can do other than what he knows we will do.
If what we perceive as future is infinite past to God and has already happened, then we can do nothing but what will/has happened. Alternately the course of events could constantly be in flux. God would know what would happen according to the state of "now," but that would be constantly changing and you wouldn't end up with what I would consider an omniscient God.
It could also be that all things happen in all possible ways, no matter how tiny the difference between ways, and God knows all of these options, and we are free to decide which of these infinite options we perceive. If this is the case though then we cannot be held morally responsible for our actions, because we only perceive a single string of our infinite actions. We would be being punished for our choice of memories, not our actions.
Actually, on second thought, that last option still doesn't work, because God couldn't know which line of memories we would choose. If he did we wouldn't be choosing our experiences freely.
An adequate definition of free will would illustrate how we know and define how animals operate and how we operate. The description you have given is simply an assumption of human free will and a lack of animal free will. That is not an explanation of what free will actually is or how it operates. Simply having choices does not create free will. We must be able to choose between them. If I am given the choice between, say, cake and death, but am incapable of choosing death for some reason, then I don't have free will.
To be said to have free will we must be able to choose between an infinite number of possibilities at any moment. I should be able to delete this post and write only "poop," or wave my arm around at any time. However, since only one set of actions can be executed, there is no evidence to suggest that I could have done anything other than I did, nor any to suggest that I can do other than what I will. Free will is a felt sense preceding an action that I could have done something else. I have seen nothing to suggest that it is anything more concrete than that.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memento mori, mahalo.
"Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real-estate above principles."
I second that this is a great topic. To continue on the Voice of Reasons point of god being the Alpha and Omega. C.S. Lewis published a theory that God exists out side of time, and that all moments are contained in one. this is a very confusing theory but hopefully i can explain. Lewis would say that our lives in comparison to God's existence is like looking at a piece of paper. We look at it through the edge as we move through this creation of time. yet God has a top view of the paper where he sees everything in time. being outside of time, he is not contained to seeing our existence in time. In essence, although I see myself as single, God see's my wife, and my pledge to her already. This is why Jesus said that if you lust after a woman it is adultry. And so God being outside of time, can objectively see all that time will bring. He has not made our desicions but sees them. We dont yet see our desicions though because we are still constrained to time.
I hope that was coherant.
Well, I won't really get into refuting your beliefs because you're entitled to them, but I will quote Bill Maher, you may as well say "the thermos keeps hot things hot and cold things cold, because it's a god. It's so willfully ignorant you might as well worship the U.S. Mail. It came again! Praise, Jesus!"
The concept of God and religion are primitive ideas used to control and scare primitive people (from George Carlin).
Well that's a loaded statement. I'm going to try to explain my view of the whole free will arguement and we'll see if it makes sense. First, like gnome05 said, God is outside time. Him knowing about what we are going to do does not change our choice. Second, even angels have free choice even though they live in a perfect place (heaven) and live with a perfect God. Therefore when an angel rejects God (sins) they are cast out of that perfect place. That is how heaven stays perfect. Earth on the other hand has become the home world of the fallen angels. The first sin recorded in the Bible was under the seduction of the serpent (Satan). Can we deduce that Satan brought evil into the world? But Satan became evil by sinning and as far as humans know, no one tempted Satan. Therefore sin is the product of choosing wrong. Now here's the twist. God CANNOT sin. Read that again. Sin is the rejection of God. Choice (in a heavenly perspective) is simply accepting or rejecting God. We as humans do not change God. Nor do we create earthquakes or floods. For the most part God isn't making the floods either (obvious exception of Noah). But God allows these things to happen. They are not his intentions but instead he allows evil to exist. God is not comprehendable. Why God does what he does if beyond what a human can discover. By the definition of sin given, anything God does is good. But that doesn't mean that He carelessly creates floods. Instead He has equipped us with the brains and the tools to predict and recover from these events. He has given us power to do good, just as he gave power to the angels to do good. Sometimes we abuse that power, and evil results. Satan has power to do evil because God gave it to him. Free will is the choice to use power.
-mersayochan
Mersayochan, whatever Christianity says is a loaded statement. I'm an atheist, so it should not be any surprise that I had a good chuckle while reading your explanation.
I'm glad to inspire humor. Laughter is better than silence.
-mersayochan
Mersayochan--I think you make a really good point, I like your explanation, but I have to disagree with you where you talk about the floods and God allowing them to happen and allowing evil to exist in the same breath; it sounds like you're saying the flood are evil (I assume, because they hurt people?) but God lets them be anyway. I believe God created the universe, and in creating it, he created the laws that govern it--this includes the laws of nature that cause floods to happen. It's a natural part of the world.
But I meant to say--even if it is possible to always do good with free will, if the premise mentioned in the post about God having free will and always doing good is accepted as true, it may be possible for God but not for humans. God isn't human; He is the Supreme Being, and therefore perfect. Humans, by our own admission, are flawed. If you accept that God is all knowing, then it's possible for Him to do good with free will (ignoring for the moment the idea that God IS goodness), because He knows everything, sees all possible occurances and options and the consequences of certain actions, and so forth, He can make the perfect decision with free will. Not having those abilities, humans can't. So we have the free will to choose good or evil or whatever, as we see it, but because we all see things differently what's good to one person is bad to another, and we don't choose the 'good' option because we can't see all the consequences and may think we are choosing right when in fact we are causing harm. It's a matter of perspective as well as having that inherent choice.
I know this sounds terrible, but I think you’re looking at this all too rationally. Truthfully, you can’t talk about God rationally because traditionally God’s reason is greater than a human’s and therefore beyond any thought process we may have. Also, I believe faith needs a certain amount of intelligent thought, but the definition of faith is belief without proof. It’s unreasonable and that’s the point. Faith is not so much with the head as the heart and emotions.
I use the term free choice. It’s a more accurate theological term, I think, because it suggests a choice between the two sides of human nature: evil (animalistic) and good (divine). So free will is the will to choose who you are and act accordingly.
I’ve thought about your next questions quite a bit personally, although I don’t quite understand your arguments against the existence of a free will. How does God, who is omniscient, not immediately negate the presence of free will? I think of God’s omniscience as knowledge of our deepest self. So yes, He does know what I’ll do with my life. So yes, it may seem my will is an illusion. But He has never intervened. I can ignore Him completely, disregard any “signs,