God Endowed Humans with Free Will?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I believe the 'Problem of Evil' is a silver bullet that will kill off the argument 'God exists as real'.

However as a defense mechanism to maintain consonance from dissonance, theists will come up with all sorts of twists and turns to deflect and eel their way through, example below;

Because your supposed God is omnipotent to the extent he is capable of creating the fine-tuning of the universe to perfect precision,
then GOD should be able to enable fine-tuning to the humans he created
such that there is no possibility of abortion, murder, torturing babies for pleasure or other evil acts.

All this is true, but begs the question completely.
"The question is not COULD God do these things," but rather
"What are the logical consequences if He were to do so?"
In the same way, we could ask "Could God have not created any humans in the first place, and the answer is obviously, "Yes."

But that's a totally uninteresting question here: the important one, is
"Since human beings exist as free will beings, what are the implications of that?"

If a supposed omni-compassionate with omnipotence can create such a perfect fine-tuned universe, then such a GOD would have no problem creating humans WITHOUT the possibility of committing evil acts without any negative consequences at all.

Instead of addressing the logical possibility of the above, IC twisted, turned and deflected to asking and implying the following,

• Since human beings exist as free will beings, ..
  (it is assumed GOD exists and created humans with absolute free will)
  Humans has the free will to commit evil,
  As such, God has nothing to do with humans' free choices to do evil,
  Thus, the Problem of Evil [contradiction] do not apply,
  Therefore, God exists.

The above deflection is based on speculation.
What is needed is we should ground our argument on facts, i.e.

What is more critical question is this;

• 1. Humans exists [empirical fact].
  
  2. Humans are endowed with an existential crisis, a cognitive dissonance [psychological fact]
  
  3. Humans [theists] conjured [ASSUME] an all-powerful GOD [illusory] as a consonance to resolve the dissonance. [speculation]
  
  4. To maintain the consonance, theists speculate humans are given absolute free will. [speculation]
  
  5. Thus there is no problem of evil, i.e. God exists as real.

As such your conclusion begs the question, i.e. you merely assume [3] God exists in giving absolute freewill to humans [4].

If we resolve the fact of the existential crisis and cognitive dissonance [2] like Buddhism and other non-theistic spirituality and philosophies, there would be no need for a belief in a God [an illusion] and wrestling with the Problem of Evil.

[Immanuel Can]

If a supposed omni-compassionate with omnipotence can create such a perfect fine-tuned universe, then such a GOD would have no problem creating humans WITHOUT the possibility of committing evil acts without any negative consequences at all.

That isn't the case. There are things God does not ever do, and things that, consistent with His nature, He cannot do. We are told of various in the Bible. For example, God cannot sin. He cannot lie. He cannot break His own Word. But this is not because He lacks potency; it's rather because He never has to nor wants to act in contradiction of his own nature; and being all-powerful, He is never compelled to do so.

We do things like lying or sinning because of weakness, not strength. God has no such weaknesses.

As C.S. Lewis points out, though,"nonsense is still nonsense, even when we apply it to God." God does not make "square circles" or "married bachelors." Those things are self-contradictory and irrational, and the problem is with the concept, not with God. God's not silly or self-contradictory.

A free will being that cannot choose between good and evil is no more coherent a concept, and no more sensible, than a square circle or a married bachelor. Free will, by definition, implies choice. Otherwise, there's nothing at all "free" in it.

[henry quirk]

If a supposed omni-compassionate with omnipotence can create such a perfect fine-tuned universe, then such a GOD would have no problem creating humans WITHOUT the possibility of committing evil acts without any negative consequences at all.

if god wanted nuthin' but bio-automation -- robots -- then that's what he woulda created

seems to me, since man is not a robot but instead is a free will, god wanted man to be free

the bitch of it is: bein' free means bein' free to be wrong, to do wrong

obviously god thought the benefits of bein' a free will outweigh the liabilities

[Immanuel Can]

the bitch of it is: bein' free means bein' free to be wrong, to do wrong

obviously god thought the benefits of bein' a free will outweigh the liabilities

A tidy summary...and accurate.

[henry quirk]

the bitch of it is: bein' free means bein' free to be wrong, to do wrong

obviously god thought the benefits of bein' a free will outweigh the liabilities

A tidy summary...and accurate.

like I told B: I got just the right balance of caffeine & nicotine goin', so, right now, I'm a master of insight & pith

[Immanuel Can]

the bitch of it is: bein' free means bein' free to be wrong, to do wrong

obviously god thought the benefits of bein' a free will outweigh the liabilities

A tidy summary...and accurate.

like I told B: I got just the right balance of caffeine & nicotine goin', so, right now, I'm a master of insight & pith

Well, then, pith on.

[RCSaunders]

A tidy summary...and accurate.

like I told B: I got just the right balance of caffeine & nicotine goin', so, right now, I'm a master of insight & pith

Well, then, pith on.

Succinct!

[Note for the academics and philosophers--it's not a naughty word.]

[Immanuel Can]

like I told B: I got just the right balance of caffeine & nicotine goin', so, right now, I'm a master of insight & pith

Well, then, pith on.

Succinct!
[Note for the academics and philosophers--it's not a naughty word.]

If they think it is, will you tell them to pith off?

[RCSaunders]

Well, then, pith on.

Succinct!
[Note for the academics and philosophers--it's not a naughty word.]

If they think it is, will you tell them to pith off?

No. I'd try to be helpful and suggest they avoid osculating while masticating, it might make you lithp.

[Immanuel Can]

Succinct!
[Note for the academics and philosophers--it's not a naughty word.]

If they think it is, will you tell them to pith off?

No. I'd try to be helpful and suggest they avoid osculating while masticating, it might make you lithp.

Good one, centurion.*



*one of Henry's no-prizes for anyone identifying that film.

[RCSaunders]

If they think it is, will you tell them to pith off?

No. I'd try to be helpful and suggest they avoid osculating while masticating, it might make you lithp.

Good one, centurion.*



*one of Henry's no-prizes for anyone identifying that film.

Haven't watched a Hollywood movie since 1975, so I cheated. "Life of Brian."

[Age]

If a supposed omni-compassionate with omnipotence can create such a perfect fine-tuned universe, then such a GOD would have no problem creating humans WITHOUT the possibility of committing evil acts without any negative consequences at all.

if god wanted nuthin' but bio-automation -- robots -- then that's what he woulda created

seems to me, since man is not a robot but instead is a free will, god wanted man to be free

the bitch of it is: bein' free means bein' free to be wrong, to do wrong

obviously god thought the benefits of bein' a free will outweigh the liabilities

Allowing human beings to CHOOSE what 'it' Truly IS that they Truly WANT, and want to create, for themselves, can only be done if they have 'free will'.

Now, human beings learn BEST by and through making MISTAKES, doing wrong, themselves, which can only come from having 'free will'.

In order for the 'world' that human beings Truly want to live in and make, for themselves, then they need to learn the BEST way to accomplish and create this 'world', once and for ALL.

To be able to create some 'thing', like a Truly Peaceful world for EVERY one, which is intended to be around forever more, then it is BEST to make ALL of the MISTAKES, 'beforehand', BEFORE that 'world' begins.

Being FREE gives human beings the opportunity to do WRONG, and LEARN from those MISTAKES, BEFORE they move on up to the next stage/step in Life.

When human beings have evolved out of the human being stage, and moved up into the next and closer stage to being more God-like, then ALL-OF-THIS becomes MUCH CLEARER and MUCH BETTER UNDERSTOOD.

In other words, what you said here "henry quirk" is EXACTLY Right (that is; besides calling and labeling God a "he" and saying that God "thought" some 'thing'. God does NOT 'think'. God KNOWS).

[Age]

If a supposed omni-compassionate with omnipotence can create such a perfect fine-tuned universe, then such a GOD would have no problem creating humans WITHOUT the possibility of committing evil acts without any negative consequences at all.

That isn't the case. There are things God does not ever do, and things that, consistent with His nature, He cannot do. We are told of various in the Bible. For example, God cannot sin. He cannot lie. He cannot break His own Word. But this is not because He lacks potency; it's rather because He never has to nor wants to act in contradiction of his own nature; and being all-powerful, He is never compelled to do so.

We do things like lying or sinning because of weakness, not strength. God has no such weaknesses.

These are just EXCUSES used to ATTEMPT to "justify" and "minimize" one's OWN, internally KNOWN, 'wrong doing'.

These attempts are also what is actually keeping 'you', human beings, in the days of when this is being written, from reaching and being at a more God-like status, which is what ACTUALLY HAPPENS and comes to BE, in the future.

As C.S. Lewis points out, though,"nonsense is still nonsense, even when we apply it to God." God does not make "square circles" or "married bachelors." Those things are self-contradictory and irrational, and the problem is with the concept, not with God. God's not silly or self-contradictory.

A free will being that cannot choose between good and evil is no more coherent a concept, and no more sensible, than a square circle or a married bachelor. Free will, by definition, implies choice. Otherwise, there's nothing at all "free" in it.

[Immanuel Can]

Haven't watched a Hollywood movie since 1975, so I cheated. "Life of Brian."

Correct. No-prize.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If a supposed omni-compassionate with omnipotence can create such a perfect fine-tuned universe, then such a GOD would have no problem creating humans WITHOUT the possibility of committing evil acts without any negative consequences at all.

That isn't the case. There are things God does not ever do, and things that, consistent with His nature, He cannot do. We are told of various in the Bible. For example, God cannot sin. He cannot lie. He cannot break His own Word.

Since your supposed God is intrinsically omni-GOOD, omni-compassionate, omnibenevolent, omni-empathy and omni-morally-Good, it logically God will not sin, lie nor commit any other evil [as defined].

But this is not because He lacks potency; it's rather because He never has to nor wants to act in contradiction of his own nature; and being all-powerful, He is never compelled to do so.

That is my point, your supposed God will logically not act in contradiction of his own nature.
As I had stated, your supposed God intrinsic nature is omni-GOOD, omni-compassionate, omnibenevolent, omni-empathy and the likes.

Your supposed God must have such qualities as above from the start before He created humans.

Therefore when God began to create humans, logically and it follows that God would have imbued human nature with Good and no possibility of evil.

As such, a supposed omni-compassionate with omnipotence can create such a perfect fine-tuned universe, then such a GOD would naturally creates humans WITHOUT the possibility of committing evil acts without any negative consequences at all.

But it is evident, there had been terrible natural evil and evil committed by humans.

Therefore your supposition of a supposed-God that is omni-compassionate with omnipotence is wrong.

We do things like lying or sinning because of weakness, not strength. God has no such weaknesses.

Yes, if your supposed God is omni-compassionate with omnipotence.

As C.S. Lewis points out, though, "nonsense is still nonsense, even when we apply it to God." God does not make "square circles" or "married bachelors." Those things are self-contradictory and irrational, and the problem is with the concept, not with God. God's not silly or self-contradictory.

A free will being that cannot choose between good and evil is no more coherent a concept, and no more sensible, than a square circle or a married bachelor. Free will, by definition, implies choice. Otherwise, there's nothing at all "free" in it.

Point is your supposed-God is supposed to be omni-compassionate with omnipotence who had created such a perfect fine-tuned universe.
In that case, your supposed God to avoid contradicting His intrinsic nature of omni-Good [logically] would not have created humans [from the beginning] capable of committing evil at all even when he endowed humans with free will which is limited.

In alignment with God intrinsic goodness, God being omnipotent can still enable humans to make choices but whatever choices humans made the consequences are always good and never evil.

But the reality is the humans who are created by a supposed-God with omni-compassionate are omnipotence are committing terrible evil and violence.

Therefore the supposed-God with omni-compassionate are omnipotence NEVER existed as real in the first place.

The alternative realistic point is this;
It is a psychological issue that theists conjure up a God to resolve the inherent and unavoidable dissonance hastily without deep thought of the Problem of Evil and its inherent contradiction.

Kant alluded to this fact;

It is, indeed, the common fate of Human Reason to complete its Speculative Structures as speedily as may be, and only afterwards to enquire whether the foundations are reliable.
All sorts of excuses will then be appealed to, in order to reassure us of their solidity, or rather indeed to enable us to dispense altogether with so late and so dangerous an enquiry.
CPR [A5] [B9]

Due to the terrible existential dissonance, humans naturally and hastily speculate the idea of an omni-potent God for their salvation as a consonance.

Then when question of the rationality of their God, theists churned up all sorts of excuses to justify their contradictory mental emergence of a supposed omni-potent God with omni-compassion and omni-whatever.

Theists will use the Fine-Tuning Argument [FTA] as justification to argue for the cosmological God.
Thus if a supposed omni-compassionate with omnipotence GOD can create such a perfect fine-tuned universe,
then such a GOD would have no problem creating humans WITHOUT the possibility of committing evil acts without any negative consequences at all,
so as not to contradict God's nature of OMNI-GOOD.

But in contrary to the supposed God with omnipotence and omni-Good, there is the reality of natural evil and terrible evils committed by humans.
Therefore the supposed GOD with omnipotence and omni-Good NEVER existed.