God Endowed Humans with Free Will?

[Immanuel Can]

You are implying that volition necessitates evil.

Implying? Necessitates?

No, I am stating outright that the existence of volition entails the freedom to choose to disobey must be present at some point. And if it never was, then there was never any authentic volition.

I'm talking about, "evil," you're talking about, "disobedience," as if they were the same thing.

When we speak of "disobedience to a righteous God," then "evil" is exactly the meaning of that word.

To not exercise one's volition is an abdication of the requirement of one's human nature. One's choices are only volitional when they are free from any constraint, like someone else's laws.

That's not quite right, if you think about it.

To say, "There is a law against theft," is not to say, "You have no volition to steal." Rather, it implies that the hearer has both the volition required and the opportunity to do it, and even the propensity to be inclined to do it.

One does not set a law for something that has no chance of happening. There's no law against flapping your arms and flying over the citadel, because you can't. But there's a law against theft because you can...and you might really want to...and somebody almost certainly will try it.

Volition is implied in the giving of a law. But so are consequences. The implication of "Thou shalt not steal" is not "You lack the ability to steal," but rather, "If you do, in fact, choose to steal, your voluntary action will be attended by the law's consequences."

[Veritas Aequitas]

Now that you have presented the question,

• How do you know
  that God can have no sufficient reason
  for the allowing of some evil?

I note it is simple enough to answer, i.e.

• I know,
  that God can have no sufficient reason
  for the allowing of some evil,
  because it would be not logical and contradictory
  for God to allow some evil.

Well, let's see if you're committed to that answer.

Would it be better for God to allow no possibility of human free will, or to make free will possible but accept that some humans will use their free will badly?

Note my rational point below;

• 1. The point here is, as a Christian it is necessary that your supposed-God must have intrinsic positive omni-qualities to qualify as "a Being than which no greater can be believed or exists."
  
  2. The omni-qualities in this case are omni-Good, omni-benevolent [omni-compassionate, omni-empathy, omni-loving and the likes] with omnipotence.
  
  3. With the qualities in 2 above, your supposed God will logically and naturally not exude evil in any circumstances.
  
  4. But the fact is there is evil [natural and human] in the world created by your supposed God.
  
  5. Fact of evil in 4 does not follow with points 1-4, i.e. not logical and is contradictory
  
  6. Therefore your supposed God cannot exists as real.

Now to your question,
If I am your supposed God with the above 1 to 4, it is logical and natural that the humans I created spontaneously will not have any possibility of committing evil at all.
This follow from God's nature which is intrinsically omni-Good and enabling any evil would be contradictory.

[RCSaunders]

Implying? Necessitates?

No, I am stating outright that the existence of volition entails the freedom to choose to disobey must be present at some point. And if it never was, then there was never any authentic volition.

I'm talking about, "evil," you're talking about, "disobedience," as if they were the same thing.

When we speak of "disobedience to a righteous God," then "evil" is exactly the meaning of that word

That begs the question. Is a God that makes a universe in which evil and eternal torment are inevitable righteous? You think He is. I don't.

To not exercise one's volition is an abdication of the requirement of one's human nature. One's choices are only volitional when they are free from any constraint, like someone else's laws.

That's not quite right, if you think about it.

It's exactly right! You are denying volition.

To say, "There is a law against theft," is not to say, "You have no volition to steal." Rather, it implies that the hearer has both the volition required and the opportunity to do it, and even the propensity to be inclined to do it.

If there were such a propensity, it would not be chosen but something imposed on an individual. If you truly believed in volition you would know nothing predispositions an individual to think or choose anything, else it is not volition.

There is no such thing as a, "desire to steal." A desire for something is not a desire to steal it. Before there could be a desire to, "steal," one would have to know the desired object belonged to someone, that it did not just exist as a natural object like an apple on a tree, or the air, and that taking it would be taking what belonged to someone else. Desiring something, even when it is someone else's property, is not a, "propensity," "inclination," or "temptation," to steal it. It is a motivation to earn or produce whatever is desired for one's self, or perhaps to exchange something one has produced for it. Only a Christian, or idiot, would think a desire to have some good thing was a desire to steal it.

There is something the religious and mystics never understand. Except for those who have buried their consciousness and reason under a load of superstitious nonsense called, "faith," "mystic insight," or "revelation," the rational nature makes it impossible for an individual to evade the knowledge that whatever they have, not acquired by producing it by their own effort, or by trading what they have produced for it, is never really theirs. They may posses it, use it, even enjoy it in a shallow physical way, but can never enjoy it as an affirmation of their own competence and ability to achieve and acquire what their life needs to be fulfilled.

Those who defy their own nature and seek what they have not earned, in order to evade their own sense of failure and inadequacy to live successfully embrace any superstitious nonsense that will excuse their failure as, "not their fault," but the result of some inborn irresistable defect in their nature, their genetics, sinful nature, or some inexplicable inclination to do what they know is wrong. There, "salvation," (and total corruption), is in the belief they can be, "forgiven," and that somehow [by some ritual or the embracing of some doctrine] their wrong can be canceled. But wrong can never be canceled and true justice never forgives evil.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, let's see if you're committed to that answer.

Would it be better for God to allow no possibility of human free will, or to make free will possible but accept that some humans will use their free will badly?

Note my rational point below;

No, I just want to know what your answer to my question is.

One line will do. It's a this-or-that choice.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm talking about, "evil," you're talking about, "disobedience," as if they were the same thing.

When we speak of "disobedience to a righteous God," then "evil" is exactly the meaning of that word

That begs the question. Is a God that makes a universe in which evil and eternal torment are inevitable righteous?

You just mangled the question, actually. You added this word "inevitable," which then skews the question by making its premise untrue.

But that word isn't justified. Neither "evil" nor "eternal torment" are "inevitable." Free will makes is possible for you to choose good or evil, and to choose your eternal destiny. Nothing is "inevitable" there. That's the point.

Now, whether or not you choose to avoid them...that's up to you.

To not exercise one's volition is an abdication of the requirement of one's human nature. One's choices are only volitional when they are free from any constraint, like someone else's laws.

That's not quite right, if you think about it.

It's exactly right! You are denying volition.

No, I'm not.

I'm simply pointing out that volition does not mean "unrestricted ability." You can't flap your arms and fly. That's a choice you can't have. But that does not mean you do not have free choice in lots of other ways. And the fact that you can't flap your arms and fly does not imply you are not free...just that you are not free to do that.

To say, "There is a law against theft," is not to say, "You have no volition to steal." Rather, it implies that the hearer has both the volition required and the opportunity to do it, and even the propensity to be inclined to do it.

If there were such a propensity, it would not be chosen but something imposed on an individual.[/quote]
Not at all. It is quite ordinary for a person to experience more than one propensity or inclination at a time. If you have the propensity to get married and also the propensity to think of all the reasons why you want to stay single, you are not "imposed" a decision one way or the other.

There is no such thing as a, "desire to steal."

If that were true, nobody would ever steal.

[RCSaunders]

There is no such thing as a, "desire to steal."

If that were true, nobody would ever steal.

That's just silly.

if I say, "there is no desire to make a mistake," and you said, "if that were true nobody would ever make a mistake," even you would know it was absurd.

Your belief in intrinsicism makes it impossible for you understand that a desire for a good thing is not a desire to steal it. "Stealing," is not a fundamental, it is only a method, a wrong method. No one wants to use the wrong method any more than they want to make a mistake.

[Immanuel Can]

There is no such thing as a, "desire to steal."

If that were true, nobody would ever steal.

That's just silly.

Really? You think people do things for which they have absolutely no desire?

You're going to have to give an example, I would think. And it would have to be a lot better than this one:

if I say, "there is no desire to make a mistake," and you said, "if that were true nobody would ever make a mistake," even you would know it was absurd.

But "mistake" isn't evil, and isn't an action. It's a descriptor of some kind of action that failed or miscarried, but doesn't define what the action itself actually consists of. Far from being of moral concern, a "mistake" is ordinarily regarded as neutral: you can even use it as an excuse, and say, "I'm sorry...I made a mistake." And it's a legit excuse.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Well, let's see if you're committed to that answer.

Would it be better for God to allow no possibility of human free will, or to make free will possible but accept that some humans will use their free will badly?

Note my rational point below;

No, I just want to know what your answer to my question is.

One line will do. It's a this-or-that choice.

You seem to insist on irrationality when what I offered is rational.

That is the point,
the idea of God is initiated from some irrational impulse from an inherent unavoidable existential dissonance.
Thus it cannot reconcile with anything that is rational.

[RCSaunders]

If that were true, nobody would ever steal.

That's just silly.

Really? You think people do things for which they have absolutely no desire?

You're going to have to give an example, I would think. And it would have to be a lot better than this one:

if I say, "there is no desire to make a mistake," and you said, "if that were true nobody would ever make a mistake," even you would know it was absurd.

But "mistake" isn't evil, and isn't an action. It's a descriptor of some kind of action that failed or miscarried, but doesn't define what the action itself actually consists of. Far from being of moral concern, a "mistake" is ordinarily regarded as neutral: you can even use it as an excuse, and say, "I'm sorry...I made a mistake." And it's a legit excuse.

This is where we disagree. "Sorry," doesn't cut it and a, "mistake," is not an excuse. Reality does not care why you did a wrong thing, ignorance, defiance, laziness, or yielding to some irrational impusle, the consequences (justice) are the same. Only when human beings (religions) interfere is justice thwarted.

[Immanuel Can]

Note my rational point below;

No, I just want to know what your answer to my question is.

One line will do. It's a this-or-that choice.

You seem to insist on irrationality when what I offered is rational.

No, only on relevance when what you offer is evasiveness. Just answer the question, is my request. Or say you don't want to. I'll accept either.

[Immanuel Can]

Only when human beings (religious) interfere is justice thwarted.

I wonder if you really think that. If you would, you wouldn't use the word "unjust" to describe, say, people dying in an earthquake. You'd only use it to describe, say, Communists shooting victims in the basement of the Lubyanka Building...that is, actions done by human beings. And "religion" would only be one of many possible motives for people doing such things. (Communists do not regard themselves as "religious" for example: they're self-proclaimed Atheists.)

[RCSaunders]

Only when human beings (religious) interfere is justice thwarted.

I wonder if you really think that.

It's not a belief. It's an observation. Except where men interfere, the consequences of one's choices and actions are determined by reality. Whatever the natural consequences of anyone's actions are, that is what I mean by justice.

If you would, you wouldn't use the word "unjust" to describe, say, people dying in an earthquake.

I doubt if I'd call it anything, but If I did, it would have to be justice, not injustice, especially if there was any warning (as there has often been in the past) and people were too foolish to move.

You'd only use it to describe, say, Communists shooting victims in the basement of the Lubyanka Building...that is, actions done by human beings.

Whenever human beings intentionally harm other human beings, it is unjust, whether shooting victims, or hanging them, or killing them in gas chambers, or locking them up in cells, or extorting money from them in the form of penalties, fine, or taxes--all human interference in natural justice in injustice.

And "religion" would only be one of many possible motives for people doing such things. (Communists do not regard themselves as "religious" for example: they're self-proclaimed Atheists.)

Religions, political ideologies, social ideologies, or whatever else men use as an excuse to interfere in others' lives are all the same to me. You have even said that atheism is a religion.

[attofishpi]

Mans "Justice" is Just_Ice




Andrew Seas Art
http://www.androcies.com/galleryscroll.php

[Veritas Aequitas]

No, I just want to know what your answer to my question is.

One line will do. It's a this-or-that choice.

You seem to insist on irrationality when what I offered is rational.

No, only on relevance when what you offer is evasiveness. Just answer the question, is my request. Or say you don't want to. I'll accept either.

Who is the evasive one in the first place?
YOU were the one who was evasive and still evading because you are cornered with a 'checkmate' position.

Note this;

Now that you have presented the question,

• How do you know
  that God can have no sufficient reason
  for the allowing of some evil?

I note it is simple enough to answer, i.e.

• I know,
  that God can have no sufficient reason
  for the allowing of some evil,
  because it would be not logical and contradictory
  for God to allow some evil.

It is a direct and straightforward answer to your question.

I have answered your question direct to the point but you then staggered to evade further with this;

Would it be better for God to allow no possibility of human free will, or to make free will possible but accept that some humans will use their free will badly?

It is pointless for me to put myself in a supposed-GOD's shoes when to me GOD is an illusion.

I don't believe God exists as real.
If I assumes God exists as real, then this assumed-GOD MUST be an ontological GOD which logically will not endow all humans with free will to commit any evil acts.

[attofishpi]

I don't believe God exists as real.
If I assumes God exists as real, then this assumed-GOD MUST be an ontological GOD which logically will not endow all humans with free will to commit any evil acts.

Er, so not free will then? U want it both ways..