Showing posts with label free will in heaven. Show all posts
Showing posts with label free will in heaven. Show all posts

Friday, October 12, 2012

Is There Free Will in Heaven?

 Photobucket
Gustove Dore's illustration of Dante's Divine Comedy


I see this topic raised by atheist from time to time. It never seems to die out. I get the feeling they think they have some big air-tight contradiction or something. I can't really really figure out what it's supposed to prove. I want to state from the outset before I start analyzing it, my own bias is free will. I am opposed to the sort of Calvinistic predestination that removes from us any part in choosing to follow God. I think God must like free will and value it highly to place it above the consequences of having it. I can see why he would because free will is a wonderful thing. Why should God want a robot who has to do his will when he could have a free moral agents who obeys out of love and wants to please God becuase he loves God? So to be a free will loving God God must be a loving God who wants a love relationship with his "children."

For many atheists free will in heaven is not just a wrench of the works of belief in after life, it's actually a dilemma they use to make a point about this life. Many atheists don't like the idea of free will because it means they must choose. Since they refuse to choose God's way they must choose their sin they want to either believe that they have to choose sin and thus are not blame worthy, or the blame God for giving them the choice when he could just as easily avoid it. So they construct a dilemma like this:

(1) If God allows free will in heaven it will undermine heaven's righteousness becasue sin nature will force us to sin.

(2) on the other hand if he takes away free will in heaven why not take it away on earth and avoid the conflicts and problems?

It beats me why anyone would want to be a robot. I suspect their genreation were trianed to be docile and accept being told what to do. My generation, the Woodstockers, did not accept being told what to do. We loved free will and want it all cost. I don't see the allure of being a robot but I have seen many atheists argue for it's virtues.

To complicate matters more this generation "y/z"* as I call them, they understand determinism. They confuse determinism with regular cause and effect. So they think any kind of C/e is automatically deterministic. That means they think regular motivations are deterministic and thus no temptation is resistible. If you have given the power by God to resist sin you are already a determined robot.

Start with answering the question "if god hates sin so much, why allow us the ability to sin?" I theorize that God wants free moral agents who willingly choose the good. Why does he want that? Becuase it's more satisfying and is the product of love, to have creatures (children?) who willingly do what you want becuase they love you. Jesus said "he who is forgiven much loves much." This implies that as free moral agents we are given free will so that we can willingly seek the good. To seek the good we must internalize the values of the good. If we don't do that then we are vainly seeking something we don't understand or care about. It is through interlaizing the values of the good that we come to "love much" because it's that way that we realize we have been forgiven much. It's a learning process one must go through first hand.

That also means we have to have the risk of evil choices. To have free and seek the good we have to risk making the wrong choice and getting off track and choosing the wrong thing. If we don't risk that then we don't have a true choice. It's only through choice that one makes moral depictions and without moral decisions we don't have a moral universe. All of this assumes we have a world in which to work, a world in which we mus search for truth, in searching we internalize the values. If every time we faced problems and dangers everything fell into place through miracles there would never be a search.

Given this answer let's take the first side of the dilemma. If God allows free will people will sin and screw up the good in heaven. No this wont happen becuase no one wants to sin in heven. no one in heaven wants to sin. Everyone in heaven has been through the search, forgiven much, loves much wants to be with God and doesn't want to sin. I'm sure there a sustaining aspect to being in heaven, not that have no free will but that being face to face with the source of all goodness and love and having no problems and being with one's departed loved ones there not much motivation to leave. I would imagine one probalby can leave heaven but why would they? If they had it in them to leave why would they be there anyway?

The second side of the dilemma is automatically answered. God allows free will in heaven so there's no inconsistency in allowing it on earth. To that answer they usually say, "well why not just have us born with all the knowledge of the search?" This is like trying to cheat the process. It's saying why go through this? It's a learning process you can have it given to you it just wouldn't mean as much as doing the search and finding the truth yourself. The sign posts to point the way to truth are there and there are many of them, if you have the right attitude. It really is an absurd delimma.

Why don't we turn the tables and ask them why they are so delirious of not having to search? I can't claim to know the hearts of all atheists but I would image for many it's that they don't' want to let go of sin. They are saying, and I've heard them say it many times, why should God care if I want do X?" So don't take away my pet sin. That may be the hardest part it may the par we have to do, is let go of sin.

Of course at his point my Calvinist brothers/sisters become concerned because think this is works. Letting go is not works. It's not earning slavtion it 's being good enough to make it, it's not making it on your own, it's almost passive. It's one active move, let go. That basically amounts to wanting it. That's the same free will. Free will is not earning it it's no more than just wanting the truth really.



*What comes after generation "y/z?" generation "Duh!"

Sunday, February 12, 2012

Was Creation Wroth the Pain? Theodicy Strikes Again

Photobucket

this is a post by "lance" on CARM



Atrocities are states of affairs, obtained by the intentions of free moral agents, which are so evil that they undoubtedly outweigh the moral worth of the freedom they are preformed in. Due to the severity of evil resulting from these actions, one would be morally obligated to violate on the guilty party's freedom, and ensure their intentions do not obtain.

(1) If one is aware of an intended atrocity and one is capable of stopping it, one is morally obligated to stop it
(2) God was aware of intentions to commit atrocities and God is capable of stopping them, God is morally obligated to stop them
(3) Atrocities obtain
(4) Therefore, God has failed in moral obligation

Foreseeable objections and responses:

Atrocities do not obtain: To say that atrocities do not obtain is to say that if someone were to turn a blind eye to an intended murder or rape and allow it to happen they would not be doing anything wrong. I think it's blatantly obvious that this is incorrect.

I reject moral realism: I'm not interested in arguing over moral realism here.

Morality is relative to persons, what's good for you is not good for someone else: Moral relativism is another thing I'm not interested in arguing over. I work off the assumption that for any two arbitrary moral agents, if one has a particular moral obligation so would the other given the same situation.

If God did not allow atrocities there would be no higher order goods: Not every evil is an atrocity and such evils could still be defeated which would result in a higher order good. So there really is no problem with that here. To continue on with this train of thought for a bit, though, it is highly unintuitive that higher order goods would be worth it. Lets take the case of a murder; is the good of justice worth murder or rape? If that were the case it would be a good thing to murder if the murderer was brought to justice. But this just isn't the case, justice is a 'patch up' or a fix to the problem, appending justice to murder does not result in a valuable state of affairs.

If God magically stopped an attempted atrocity or created a solution ex niliho it would make our world unreliable, or would make his presence too obvious when he wants us to search for him: God is all powerful, he is fully capable of seamlessly interfering with attempted atrocities in such a way that we wouldn't even notice.



none of the alternate choices given really fits my view. I would say of course free will is necessary to have a moral universe and to love. To allow free will God must allow the choices one makes for evil. Allowing that choice opens the door to atrocities.

Moreover, finding truth must take the form of a search due to the fact that the search causes one to internalize the values of the good. That is essential for moral universe that free moral agents must internalize the values in order to seek the good.

Photobucket



here's why I reject the choices you present.

Atrocities are states of affairs, obtained by the intentions of free moral agents, which are so evil that they undoubtedly outweigh the moral worth of the freedom they are preformed in. Due to the severity of evil resulting from these actions, one would be morally obligated to violate on the guilty party's freedom, and ensure their intentions do not obtain.
I don't think you can what outweighs. that's what God ahs to say. the variables are too complex for us. The choice is not the free will of those involved in an atrocity vs. the outcome but all free as a potential loss against any atrocity. I mean by that we must assume we really asking "why did God create at all?" The implication being that the nature of evil rules out the value of creation as a whole. I don't think any humans are qualified to say that.

these are a series of Lance's observations that I am refitting:


(1) If one is aware of an intended atrocity and one is capable of stopping it, one is morally obligated to stop it


Not necessary. We don't have an obligation to though our lives away on a hopeless task. God has no obligation to abandon the creation of all creation to avoid one atrocity.

(2) God was aware of intentions to commit atrocities and God is capable of stopping them, God is morally obligated to stop them
the upshot is no creation. we are not qualified to say this.


(3) Atrocities obtain
(4) Therefore, God has failed in moral obligation
false conclusion becasue we are not qualified to say if creation was worth but God is. Don't forget that love is at steak too. No free will means no love.

If God did not allow atrocities there would be no higher order goods: Not every evil is an atrocity and such evils could still be defeated which would result in a higher order good. So there really is no problem with that here. To continue on with this train of thought for a bit, though, it is highly unintuitive that higher order goods would be worth it. Lets take the case of a murder; is the good of justice worth murder or rape? If that were the case it would be a good thing to murder if the murderer was brought to justice. But this just isn't the case, justice is a 'patch up' or a fix to the problem, appending justice to murder does not result in a valuable state of affairs.
I'm not really saying has to be evil to have a higher order of good. I'm just saying there's more value in terms of even human happiness in creation with endurance of the evil than there would be in creation, or a creation with no free will. No love, no morals, no achievement; always winter and never christmas.

If God magically stopped an attempted atrocity or created a solution ex niliho it would make our world unreliable, or would make his presence too obvious when he wants us to search for him: God is all powerful, he is fully capable of seamlessly interfering with attempted atrocities in such a way that we wouldn't even notice.

my argument has nothing to do with reliability. The making him to obvious arguemnt you misunderstand. If every time any danger threatened a miracle happened to stop it there would be no need to search to learn the truth because the truth would be obvious. If that were the case no one would internalize the values. Its not a matter of reliability or higher degrees of good it's just a simple matter of internalizing values of the good.


The problem with your argument is the variables are too complex and interrelated for us humans to draw conclusions judging the value of free will. We do not have the brains or the right to say "it's not worth it to have creation."

It's a matter of faith in god that we must trust that he does and he would not have created unless the judgment warranted that it was worth. Ergo it must be wroth it.

you can't weigh just the agents involved in terms of a specific atrocity it's atrocious as a whole vs. everything else. Free will effects everything in life.

the consequences of no free will would be no moral universe, no joy, no place, no freedom no love.

yes love requires free will. Love is not in a vacuum it's not just feeling giddy the presence of the other. its' the will to the good of the other. You can't will the good of the other and not have freewill to will it and you can't will the good of the other if the other has no choice in loving you back.

Lance
I don't really see the point you're trying to make, which premise does this make false?


The whole argument really:because what could god do differently to avoid the issue? only one of two things:either not creation or not create free will. Both are bad choices. thus creation is wroth it.

the consequences of no free will would be no moral universe, no joy, no place, no freedom no love.

yes love requires free will. Love is not in a vacuum it's not just feeling giddy the presence of the other. its' the will to the good of the other. You can't will the good of the other and not have freewill to will it and you can't will the good of the other if the other has no choice in loving you back.

Lance:
I think Fat Joe and Ashanti said it best when they sang; What's love? Got to do, got to do with it babe.


everything.

the only reason god created us with the ability to understand that atrocities are bad is because he made it possible for us to value the good. Love is the basis of the good. If atrocities outweigh the value of love the very concept of the good is self defeating. and hence no reason to even create anything.

Monday, September 05, 2011

Is There Free Will in Heaven?

Photobucket
Gustove Dore's illustration of Dante's Divine Comedy


I see this topic raised by atheist from time to time. It never seems to die out. I get the feeling they think they have some big air-tight contradiction or something. I can't really really figure out what it's supposed to prove. I want to state from the outset before I start analyzing it, my own bias is free will. I am opposed to the sort of Calvinistic predestination that removes from us any part in choosing to follow God. I think God must like free will and value it highly to place it above the consequences of having it. I can see why he would because free will is a wonderful thing. Why should God want a robot who has to do his will when he could have a free moral agents who obeys out of love and wants to please God becuase he loves God? So to be a free will loving God God must be a loving God who wants a love relationship with his "children."

For many atheists free will in heaven is not just a wrench of the works of belief in after life, it's actually a dilemma they use to make a point about this life. Many atheists don't like the idea of free will because it means they must choose. Since they refuse to choose God's way they must choose their sin they want to either believe that they have to choose sin and thus are not blame worthy, or the blame God for giving them the choice when he could just as easily avoid it. So they construct a dilemma like this:

(1) If God allows free will in heaven it will undermine heaven's righteousness becasue sin nature will force us to sin.

(2) on the other hand if he takes away free will in heaven why not take it away on earth and avoid the conflicts and problems?

It beats me why anyone would want to be a robot. I suspect their genreation were trianed to be docile and accept being told what to do. My generation, the Woodstockers, did not accept being told what to do. We loved free will and want it all cost. I don't see the allure of being a robot but I have seen many atheists argue for it's virtues.

To complicate matters more this generation "y/z"* as I call them, they understand determinism. They confuse determinism with regular cause and effect. So they think any kind of C/e is automatically deterministic. That means they think regular motivations are deterministic and thus no temptation is resistible. If you have given the power by God to resist sin you are already a determined robot.

Start with answering the question "if god hates sin so much, why allow us the ability to sin?" I theorize that God wants free moral agents who willingly choose the good. Why does he want that? Becuase it's more satisfying and is the product of love, to have creatures (children?) who willingly do what you want becuase they love you. Jesus said "he who is forgiven much loves much." This implies that as free moral agents we are given free will so that we can willingly seek the good. To seek the good we must internalize the values of the good. If we don't do that then we are vainly seeking something we don't understand or care about. It is through interlaizing the values of the good that we come to "love much" because it's that way that we realize we have been forgiven much. It's a learning process one must go through first hand.

That also means we have to have the risk of evil choices. To have free and seek the good we have to risk making the wrong choice and getting off track and choosing the wrong thing. If we don't risk that then we don't have a true choice. It's only through choice that one makes moral depictions and without moral decisions we don't have a moral universe. All of this assumes we have a world in which to work, a world in which we mus search for truth, in searching we internalize the values. If every time we faced problems and dangers everything fell into place through miracles there would never be a search.

Given this answer let's take the first side of the dilemma. If God allows free will people will sin and screw up the good in heaven. No this wont happen becuase no one wants to sin in heven. no one in heaven wants to sin. Everyone in heaven has been through the search, forgiven much, loves much wants to be with God and doesn't want to sin. I'm sure there a sustaining aspect to being in heaven, not that have no free will but that being face to face with the source of all goodness and love and having no problems and being with one's departed loved ones there not much motivation to leave. I would imagine one probalby can leave heaven but why would they? If they had it in them to leave why would they be there anyway?

The second side of the dilemma is automatically answered. God allows free will in heaven so there's no inconsistency in allowing it on earth. To that answer they usually say, "well why not just have us born with all the knowledge of the search?" This is like trying to cheat the process. It's saying why go through this? It's a learning process you can have it given to you it just wouldn't mean as much as doing the search and finding the truth yourself. The sign posts to point the way to truth are there and there are many of them, if you have the right attitude. It really is an absurd delimma.

Why don't we turn the tables and ask them why they are so delirious of not having to search? I can't claim to know the hearts of all atheists but I would image for many it's that they don't' want to let go of sin. They are saying, and I've heard them say it many times, why should God care if I want do X?" So don't take away my pet sin. That may be the hardest part it may the par we have to do, is let go of sin.

Of course at his point my Calvinist brothers/sisters become concerned because think this is works. Letting go is not works. It's not earning slavtion it 's being good enough to make it, it's not making it on your own, it's almost passive. It's one active move, let go. That basically amounts to wanting it. That's the same free will. Free will is not earning it it's no more than just wanting the truth really.



*What comes after generation "y/z?" generation "Duh!"