God Endowed Humans with Free Will?

[Veritas Aequitas]

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..

Since your supposed-God is omnipotent, surely God could have created humans with limited freewill without any potential to commit evil, such that God will spontaneously avoid ending up as against nor contradicting his intrinsic nature of omnibenevolence and omni-Good.

It is so irrational and contradictory for a supposed-God with omni-benevolent nature to plan with sufficient reason to create humans with absolute free will such that they have a choice where that God can test their loyalty, goodness [no evil] and devotion to God.

The alternative and more realistic views which are psychologically based, are that God is an illusory idea conjured as a consonance to relieve the existential dissonance.

[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..

Since your supposed-God is omnipotent, surely God could have created humans with limited freewill without any potential to commit evil,

LMFAO - robots we are (yoda).

such that God will spontaneously avoid ending up as against nor contradicting his intrinsic nature of omnibenevolence and omni-Good.

Let me just put things into perspective for you.

God - as Christ - went to his death to prove the control that God has over ALL matter at the sub-atomic binary scale.

He also warned us of con.sequences of events should we not live up to the WORTH of THAT sacrifice. (where is OMNI-GOOD there btw - idiot)

It is so irrational and contradictory for a supposed-God with omni-benevolent nature to plan with sufficient reason to create humans with absolute free will such that they have a choice where that God can test their loyalty, goodness [no evil] and devotion to God.

Idiot. (read above - you are full of contradictions)

The alternative and more realistic views which are psychologically based, are that God is an illusory idea conjured as a consonance to relieve the existential dissonance.

That is because, as an idiot, you think you are superior in log.ic to those that believe in what Christ did, and his me.sage

[Immanuel Can]

Whenever human beings intentionally harm other human beings, it is unjust,

I would say so. But you don't seem to have any basis to conclude that, RC, so far as I can see. You don't believe there's an ultimate standard of justice, do you?

For you, it could be just like the earthquakes: neither just nor unjust. Whether a man is killed by a bullet or a piece of debris from a tornado seems merely contingent. What makes the former unjust and the latter neutral or even just?

You have even said that atheism is a religion.

I don't think I've said quite that. I have said "religion" is a hopelessly vague and Atheistically-biased term. I have said Atheism is an expression of faith, not facts. But I don't recall calling Atheism a "religion" as such. However, let that be.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

• 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.

Are you saying that God would be "illogical and contradictory" to create beings that have free will -- that is, beings that have their own option either to DO or NOT DO what God desires? Does "goodness" require the Creator to Create only robots programmed to the good?

Or is it plausible that it could be better for the Creator to create volitionally free beings than slaves or robots?

[Terrapin Station]

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."

Depends on what one considers great, I suppose.

. . . But the fact is there is evil [natural and human] in the world created by your supposed God.

The usual response to that is that God deems the possibility of evil--so that people can choose to be evil (where we're pretending for a moment that it's not a subjective valuation) is necessary in the best possible world. The fact that we could imagine something different or might prefer something different wouldn't have a bearing on this.

[DPMartin]

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;


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.

if you're talking about the God of Israel (Creator and Judge) one should understand God is the judge of what is good and evil for His creation and the creatures therein no exceptions. God gave the man (Adam) His place in the earth to execute God's Judgements in the earth. and those Judgements are according to God's Judgement not man's (the delusion of free will). God's Judgement is Life any other results in death because only God's Judgement is Life. what happened in the garden is they died of the Life they had before they ate of the tree and were left with dust to dust just as any animal has. and all their children has received the same life unto death. though the concept of free will is thrown around and around its result is the same. man's judgement (choices) result in death.

but man's judgement doesn't prove or disprove anything that's significant. the God of Israel or of Jesus Christ if you will is revealed and the revelation is experienced, hence God is known. and its God's prerogative to reveal Himself to whom ever He pleases. the created doesn't prove or test for a Creator. the Creator proves and test the created for its value.

though yes according to your own judgement you deny there's a Creator and Judge, probably as you judge for yourself what is good and evil, thing is that judgement still results in death. and mankind's judgment is not only death, but man's ultimate judgement of his fellow man is death.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

Since your supposed-God is omnipotent, surely God could have created humans with limited freewill without any potential to commit evil,

LMFAO - robots we are (yoda).

You are desperate thus resorting to rhetoric and equivocation.

A robot is a machine—especially one programmable by a computer— capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot

A supposedly powerful God with omnipotence will naturally create humans with limited freewill that will not commit evil acts. What is so robotics about this?

such that God will spontaneously avoid ending up as against nor contradicting his intrinsic nature of omnibenevolence and omni-Good.

Let me just put things into perspective for you.

God - as Christ - went to his death to prove the control that God has over ALL matter at the sub-atomic binary scale.

He also warned us of consequences of events should we not live up to the WORTH of THAT sacrifice. (where is OMNI-GOOD there btw - idiot)

Regardless, it is not logical and it is contradictory for a supposed God with omnipotence, omniGood and omnibenevolence to have created humans that will commit evil acts.

It is so irrational and contradictory for a supposed-God with omni-benevolent nature to plan with sufficient reason to create humans with absolute free will such that they have a choice where that God can test their loyalty, goodness [no evil] and devotion to God.

Idiot. (read above - you are full of contradictions)

Where are my contradictions in the above statement?

The alternative and more realistic views which are psychologically based, are that God is an illusory idea conjured as a consonance to relieve the existential dissonance.

That is because, as an idiot, you think you are superior in log.ic to those that believe in what Christ did, and his me.sage

What I am relying upon is based on what is verifiable and justifiable as real.
If what you claim cannot be verifiable and justifiable as real, then it is false, i.e. your supposed God is false.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

• 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.

Are you saying that God would be "illogical and contradictory" to create beings that have free will -- that is, beings that have their own option either to DO or NOT DO what God desires? Does "goodness" require the Creator to Create only robots programmed to the good?

Or is it plausible that it could be better for the Creator to create volitionally free beings than slaves or robots?

Desperate rhetoric, you are conflating and equivocating humans with 'robots'.

• A robot is a machine—especially one programmable by a computer— capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot
  
  Humans (Homo sapiens) are a species of highly intelligent primates.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

Don't insult your intelligence in equivocating above terms in respect of this issue.

I have stated many times,
it is not logical and it is contradictory for a supposed God with omnipotence, omniGood and omnibenevolence to have created humans that will commit evil acts.

Since your supposed God is intrinsically omni-GOOD, logically and naturally whatever that follow from this omni-Good must be good.
Evil is the opposite of Good.
If your supposed God which is intrinsically omni-Good is linked with evil, then it is a contradiction.

Since the reality is humans supposedly created by an omni-Good God are committing evil, then, the supposed omni-Good God does not exist.

Your 'God has sufficient reason to enable choice' is merely post hoc excuses to deflect from the real reason, i.e. God was a human invention as a consonance to deal with the existential dissonance.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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."

Depends on what one considers great, I suppose.

'great' can be related to any variable one need to attribute to God-X.

If say, the variable, benevolence, then there is no God, a, b or c which has a greater benevolence than God-X. In this case, the ontological God-X is omnibenevolent.

. . . But the fact is there is evil [natural and human] in the world created by your supposed God.

The usual response to that is that God deems the possibility of evil--so that people can choose to be evil (where we're pretending for a moment that it's not a subjective valuation) is necessary in the best possible world. The fact that we could imagine something different or might prefer something different wouldn't have a bearing on this.

Point is,
No theist will accept their God to be inferior to another God - thus the ontological God.
An ontological God must imperatively be omnibenevolent, otherwise it would be an inferior God.
As such, logically, God deems the impossibility of evil, i.e. God creates humans which will never commit evil.

The fact is there is real evil committed by real humans.

Therefore the supposed omni-Good God is false.

[Veritas Aequitas]

if you're talking about the God of Israel (Creator and Judge) one should understand God is the judge of what is good and evil for His creation and the creatures therein no exceptions. God gave the man (Adam) His place in the earth to execute God's Judgements in the earth. and those Judgements are according to God's Judgement not man's (the delusion of free will). God's Judgement is Life any other results in death because only God's Judgement is Life. what happened in the garden is they died of the Life they had before they ate of the tree and were left with dust to dust just as any animal has. and all their children has received the same life unto death. though the concept of free will is thrown around and around its result is the same. man's judgement (choices) result in death.

but man's judgement doesn't prove or disprove anything that's significant. the God of Israel or of Jesus Christ if you will is revealed and the revelation is experienced, hence God is known. and its God's prerogative to reveal Himself to whom ever He pleases. the created doesn't prove or test for a Creator. the Creator proves and test the created for its value.

though yes according to your own judgement you deny there's a Creator and Judge, probably as you judge for yourself what is good and evil, thing is that judgement still results in death. and mankind's judgment is not only death, but man's ultimate judgement of his fellow man is death.

Note my point above, repeat'

• No theist will accept their supposed God to be inferior to another God - thus the ontological God.
  An ontological God must imperatively be omnibenevolent, otherwise it would be an inferior God.
  As such, logically, God deems the impossibility of evil.
  It is not that God MUST or be required, but that is it God natural quality of omni-Good that is will creates humans which will never commit evil.
  
  The fact is there is real evil committed by real humans.
  
  Therefore the supposed omni-Good God is false.

Thus my argument is ONLY applicable to a supposed-God where theists will not accept their God is inferior to another God.
In this case, as my argument above, such a supposed God cannot be related to any evil at all.

However my argument has not impact if a theist accept his God is inferior to another God or gods.
I don't see the possibility of any theist [if they are not ignorant] who will accept their God is inferior to another God.
The Greeks and Hindus acknowledge many lower-gods but all these lower-gods are subservient to ONE all powerful God, e.g. Brahman in the case of Hinduism.

In the case of the God of Israel, I believe the believers will end up having to claim their God of Israel is not inferior to any other God, i.e. it is an ontological God.
As such, any relation of evil to the God of Israel is a contradiction, thus the God of Israel does not exist as real.

God in the first place is a psychological invention as a consonance to relieve the inherent an unavoidable existential dissonance, and thereafter theists come up with all sort of post hoc excuses to justify their delusion.

[Immanuel Can]

...equivocating humans with 'robots'.

You're not familiar with the metaphorical use of the word "robot" to designate an entity that is mobile/function-performing but devoid of volition? Well, now you know it.

Understanding the metaphor now, would you think it was better for God to make entities that, like humans, possess volition, or like robots, that merely move and function but do not possess any volition?

[Terrapin Station]

If say, the variable, benevolence, then there is no God, a, b or c which has a greater benevolence than God-X. In this case, the ontological God-X is omnibenevolent.

"Omnibenevolence is greater than some other instantiation of benevolence" isn't a fact, it's a subjective assessment. "Greater" in any sense other than purely numerical (and there's no way to make benevolence purely numerical, because it's a subjective assessment of behavior) is always going to be subjective.

An ontological God must imperatively be omnibenevolent, otherwise it would be an inferior God.

That's not actually true, though. You're completely ignoring that "omnibenevolence is better than some different instantiation of benevolence" is subjective.

But that wasn't the point anyway. You're also assuming that omnibenevolence can't allow evil. That's not the case either. I just pointed this out and you seemed to ignore it. The idea is that allowing the possibility of evil is more benevolent than not allowing the possibility of evil, even if some humans might prefer something else.

I'm an atheist, by the way, but I care about the logic/the sound philosophical assessment of this sort of stuff.

[henry quirk]

...equivocating humans with 'robots'.

You're not familiar with the metaphorical use of the word "robot" to designate an entity that is mobile/function-performing but devoid of volition? Well, now you know it.

Understanding the metaphor now, would you think it was better for God to make entities that, like humans, possess volition, or like robots, that merely move and function but do not possess any volition?

as I say up-thread...

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]

obviously god thought the benefits of bein' a free will outweigh the liabilities[/i]

Obviously mankind thinks it does, too.

People have died for freedom -- not even for a freedom they themselves could be sure to enjoy, but that the freedoms and choices of others would not be taken away. And these people have been proclaimed heroes and liberators --near saints -- by the survivors, though they themselves are in the ground.

It seems everyone knows that freedom, choice, and volition are surpassing goods that are so good they are even capable of relativizing the value of life itself. As the old saying goes, "Give me liberty, or give me death." (Patrick Henry)

[henry quirk]

obviously god thought the benefits of bein' a free will outweigh the liabilities[/i]

Obviously mankind thinks it does, too.

People have died for freedom -- not even for a freedom they themselves could be sure to enjoy, but that the freedoms and choices of others would not be taken away. And these people have been proclaimed heroes and liberators --near saints -- by the survivors, though they themselves are in the ground.

It seems everyone knows that freedom, choice, and volition are surpassing goods that are so good they are even capable of relativizing the value of life itself. As the old saying goes, "Give me liberty, or give me death." (Patrick Henry)

yep...bein' free is man's natural state and he'll die to preserve it

god, as I say, obviously thinks this is a good thing (bein' free) or he woulda just went with the far simpler bio-automata route for all life

this whole an all-knowing, all-good deity would not allow for evil spiel makes no sense to me

it assigns characteristics to god that aren't, in my deistic view, necessary for god to be god, and it ignores that god is a person with his own purposes and agenda