Free Will and the problem of Evil

[Kashindahar]

The most common definition of 'god' states that:

a) There is a being that created the universe

b) This being has unlimited ability, or the ability to do anything (Omnipotence)

c) This being has unlimited knowledge, or the knowledge of everything (Omniscience)

d) This being has unlimited compassion, or an unlimited love for its creations (Omnibenevolence)

One of the problems with this definition as it stands is that there are events and people which have a quality that inspires a revulsion and horror that can only be properly described as 'evil' (with further modifications dependant on the scale of the event or or the scale of the actions of the person). If god has omnibenevolence, as well as omnipotence and omniscience, then why do evil things happen, or, since if god has the ability to stop any of these things and knows about them and has unlimited love for us, the question becomes why does god allow 'evil' things to happen? Further, why does god allow us to do 'evil' things to each other?

One of the responses to this problem from the theological community is that of free will: this is the idea that because god created us with the ability to decide things for ourselves, god is not allowed to intervene in our choices or the ability becomes meaningless. (That this doesn't explain natural disasters is beyond the scope of this topic; I'll address those in another if the interest is there from the forum and myself.) Granted, for god to dick around with our choices after-the-fact does remove any semblance of meaning from the fact that we can make them. Grossman, in 'On Killing', gives a statistic stating that only 15% of soldiers (surveyed after battles) shot at the enemy: the rest occupied themselves with tasks like taking cover, shooting wildly into the sky, helping those who could shoot by providing handy reloads and the like. This might not be completely accurate, and some of those who didn't manage to shoot may simply not have had an opportunity to do so, but it remains that there is a non-insignificant portion of those soldiers who were not physically able to shoot at a living human being, even one that was shooting back.

This sets a precedent: there are some actions that we are not free to decide to do. Our ability to choose is apparently not made meaningless by these decisions, or lack there-of; these choices just aren't available to us. It follows, then, that god could remove from us the ability to decide to evil to another person without robbing us of free will, and without making free will meaningless, if free will exists now, and if it has meaning now.



Thoughts, clarifications I need to make, things that I need to fix, areas that I need to expand, whatever?

[Big Jim P]

People seem to have a need to create something outside of themselves that defines "good", "evil" "god" or "devil". Humans refuse to acknowledge that all is within themselves. They are their own god and devils.

[Maurepas]

I blame the Communists,

[New Manvir]

I blame the Communists,

I blame goats, its time they were a scapegoat for once.

[Maurepas]

[New Manvir]

Are they...sacrificing a goat to their Communist god(s)?

[Tekania]

One of the problems with this definition as it stands is that there are events and people which have a quality that inspires a revulsion and horror that can only be properly described as 'evil' (with further modifications dependant on the scale of the event or or the scale of the actions of the person). If god has omnibenevolence, as well as omnipotence and omniscience, then why do evil things happen, or, since if god has the ability to stop any of these things and knows about them and has unlimited love for us, the question becomes why does god allow 'evil' things to happen? Further, why does god allow us to do 'evil' things to each other?

Don't really consider this a problem, from my theological perspective... Evil happens in accordance with the will of God as much as good... difference thereof is active versus passive will. I don't attempt to understand why He would will evil in cases (or good) because no matter how much understanding is attained, I will never have either the sentience or presence equal to God to grasp the full scope of why He wills specifics (Can never grasp the whole picture)... Same concept, a child will view certain disciplines by their parent as "evil", because they lack the foresight and comprehension to see the long term good effect such actions can have... We, like the child, can only view things by a extremely confined and finite viewpoint comparatively...

One of the responses to this problem from the theological community is that of free will: this is the idea that because god created us with the ability to decide things for ourselves, god is not allowed to intervene in our choices or the ability becomes meaningless.

Theologically, I do not believe in the doctrine of "free will", but rather free agency... That is, people act in accordance with their nature... The will decides by multiple criteria, but primarily decides by the nature of the being... As such it is possible for God to change the nature of a creature (and thereby the direction of choice of the creatures will)...

[Soheran]

The argument from free will is a bad one. The most trivial way to demonstrate this is the fact that most of us do not object to the idea of stopping criminals from harming others, even though it involves depriving them of that freedom.

There is, however, a better one. The argument against God presupposes that there is only one good: human happiness, or welfare, or just treatment, or some such formulation. In fact, however, there may be a multiplicity of goods that God seeks to maximize, some of which are not reconcilable with the greatest good for humans specifically. As an incidental effect of God's multiple loyalties, then, our world appears to us to be less than perfect--but in fact it remains the best of all possible worlds.

[An archy]

The most common definition of 'god' states that:

a) There is a being that created the universe

b) This being has unlimited ability, or the ability to do anything (Omnipotence)

c) This being has unlimited knowledge, or the knowledge of everything (Omniscience)

d) This being has unlimited compassion, or an unlimited love for its creations (Omnibenevolence)

One of the problems with this definition as it stands is that there are events and people which have a quality that inspires a revulsion and horror that can only be properly described as 'evil' (with further modifications dependant on the scale of the event or or the scale of the actions of the person). If god has omnibenevolence, as well as omnipotence and omniscience, then why do evil things happen, or, since if god has the ability to stop any of these things and knows about them and has unlimited love for us, the question becomes why does god allow 'evil' things to happen? Further, why does god allow us to do 'evil' things to each other?

One of the responses to this problem from the theological community is that of free will: this is the idea that because god created us with the ability to decide things for ourselves, god is not allowed to intervene in our choices or the ability becomes meaningless. (That this doesn't explain natural disasters is beyond the scope of this topic; I'll address those in another if the interest is there from the forum and myself.) Granted, for god to dick around with our choices after-the-fact does remove any semblance of meaning from the fact that we can make them. Grossman, in 'On Killing', gives a statistic stating that only 15% of soldiers (surveyed after battles) shot at the enemy: the rest occupied themselves with tasks like taking cover, shooting wildly into the sky, helping those who could shoot by providing handy reloads and the like. This might not be completely accurate, and some of those who didn't manage to shoot may simply not have had an opportunity to do so, but it remains that there is a non-insignificant portion of those soldiers who were not physically able to shoot at a living human being, even one that was shooting back.

This sets a precedent: there are some actions that we are not free to decide to do. Our ability to choose is apparently not made meaningless by these decisions, or lack there-of; these choices just aren't available to us. It follows, then, that god could remove from us the ability to decide to evil to another person without robbing us of free will, and without making free will meaningless, if free will exists now, and if it has meaning now.



Thoughts, clarifications I need to make, things that I need to fix, areas that I need to expand, whatever?

There are a few questions I think you should consider here.

1.) What kind of free will do we have?

One could argue that electrons have free will. It certainly seems that nothing is controling their behaviour. But supposing they do have some sort of free will, it is merely with regard mundane variables such as position and momentum. When traditional theists insist that a loving God would create beings with free will, the variable across which free will is understood to operate is far more profound. It is the freedom to choose between behaviour that is either good or evil.


2.) What does it mean to be evil?

I feel that it is important in theology that virtues are defined in a positive manner while vices are defined as a negation or lack of virtue. Therefore, to properly define evil, we must start with the correct definition of good. Good is love. Specifically, good is an active love which seeks to promote the well being of others. The negation of this is the attempt to harm others. This is the proper understanding of evil.


Together, these theological positions imply that a loving God would create beings with the freedom harm each other.

[JuNii]

The most common definition of 'god' states that:

wait... god? or the Christian God?

a) There is a being that created the universe

b) This being has unlimited ability, or the ability to do anything (Omnipotence)

c) This being has unlimited knowledge, or the knowledge of everything (Omniscience)

unlimited knowledge and knowledge of everything are two seperate things is it knowing things that can be known or is it knowing things, past presents and future.

d) This being has unlimited compassion, or an unlimited love for its creations (Omnibenevolence)

uhmm... there are 'gods' who are not known for their compassion. the Greek and Roman Gods tended to play games with their humans.

One of the problems with this definition as it stands is that there are events and people which have a quality that inspires a revulsion and horror that can only be properly described as 'evil' (with further modifications dependant on the scale of the event or or the scale of the actions of the person). If god has omnibenevolence, as well as omnipotence and omniscience, then why do evil things happen, or, since if god has the ability to stop any of these things and knows about them and has unlimited love for us, the question becomes why does god allow 'evil' things to happen? Further, why does god allow us to do 'evil' things to each other?

One of the responses to this problem from the theological community is that of free will: this is the idea that because god created us with the ability to decide things for ourselves, god is not allowed to intervene in our choices or the ability becomes meaningless. (That this doesn't explain natural disasters is beyond the scope of this topic; I'll address those in another if the interest is there from the forum and myself.) Granted, for god to dick around with our choices after-the-fact does remove any semblance of meaning from the fact that we can make them. Grossman, in 'On Killing', gives a statistic stating that only 15% of soldiers (surveyed after battles) shot at the enemy: the rest occupied themselves with tasks like taking cover, shooting wildly into the sky, helping those who could shoot by providing handy reloads and the like. This might not be completely accurate, and some of those who didn't manage to shoot may simply not have had an opportunity to do so, but it remains that there is a non-insignificant portion of those soldiers who were not physically able to shoot at a living human being, even one that was shooting back.

This sets a precedent: there are some actions that we are not free to decide to do. Our ability to choose is apparently not made meaningless by these decisions, or lack there-of; these choices just aren't available to us. It follows, then, that god could remove from us the ability to decide to evil to another person without robbing us of free will, and without making free will meaningless, if free will exists now, and if it has meaning now.

Thoughts, clarifications I need to make, things that I need to fix, areas that I need to expand, whatever?

Perhaps because God decided to allow humans to run around with minimal interference from HIM. after all, if he can do anything, then he can restrict his involvement to the minimum.

After all, if God can do anything, then he can sit back and allow us to experience our mistakes and to see if we would learn from it or not. God instilled within us, emotions, Intellect, and wisdom. how we use it, if at all, is ultimately up to us.

[Saxemberg]

Thoughts, clarifications I need to make, things that I need to fix, areas that I need to expand, whatever?

The problem is even more acute than you seem to think.

Let's assume that both God and free will exist.

As philosopher J L Mackie pointed out, there is no logical contradiction between having the freedom to choose evil, and yet never actually choosing evil.

That is to say: a person could possess free will, and have the potential to choose evil in every situation, and yet freely choose good instead, every time.

In fact, we could not be said to have free will unless this possibility existed. If we were unable to choose good every time, then our wills would not be truly free.

Given that it is possible for a person to be free to choose evil, and yet never actually do so, it follows that God could have created a universe in which every person was free to choose evil--and yet never actually did so.

That is to say: God could have created a universe in which everyone chooses good, in every situation, despite having the freedom to choose evil.

But it didn't. Instead, it created a universe in which some people choose good in some situations, and other people choose evil.

Why? If God can do anything, then the only possible answer is: because it wanted things this way.

That is to say: it wanted a world where there is murder, and rape, and oppression, and genocide, and where souls are condemned to suffer eternal torture in Hell for the evil choices they made in life. If it didn't want these things to happen, it could and would have prevented them.

The same argument applies to belief and disbelief. If God truly wanted us all to believe, then we would all believe--even if we had the freedom to disbelieve. Such a world is no less possible than a world in which people are free to choose evil, and yet always choose good.

And yet, as we all know, some people believe in God, and others don't. And if God truly is all-powerful, then the only possible explanation for this state of affairs is that God wants things this way.

The conclusion seems inescapable that God wants some people to suffer horribly, both in this life and the next. How such a being could be described as a loving Father is beyond me. At best, he's a deadbeat dad: at worst, a wife-beater and child-molester.

[Antilon]

Are they...sacrificing a goat to their Communist god(s)?

Are you saying you don't?

*readies the dunking chair*

[An archy]

Thoughts, clarifications I need to make, things that I need to fix, areas that I need to expand, whatever?

The problem is even more acute than you seem to think.

Let's assume that both God and free will exist.

As philosopher J L Mackie pointed out, there is no logical contradiction between having the freedom to choose evil, and yet never actually choosing evil.

That is to say: a person could possess free will, and have the potential to choose evil in every situation, and yet freely choose good instead, every time.

In fact, we could not be said to have free will unless this possibility existed. If we were unable to choose good every time, then our wills would not be truly free.

Given that it is possible for a person to be free to choose evil, and yet never actually do so, it follows that God could have created a universe in which every person was free to choose evil--and yet never actually did so.

That is to say: God could have created a universe in which everyone chooses good, in every situation, despite having the freedom to choose evil.

But it didn't. Instead, it created a universe in which some people choose good in some situations, and other people choose evil.

Why? If God can do anything, then the only possible answer is: because it wanted things this way.

That is to say: it wanted a world where there is murder, and rape, and oppression, and genocide, and where souls are condemned to suffer eternal torture in Hell for the evil choices they made in life. If it didn't want these things to happen, it could and would have prevented them.

The same argument applies to belief and disbelief. If God truly wanted us all to believe, then we would all believe--even if we had the freedom to disbelieve. Such a world is no less possible than a world in which people are free to choose evil, and yet always choose good.

And yet, as we all know, some people believe in God, and others don't. And if God truly is all-powerful, then the only possible explanation for this state of affairs is that God wants things this way.

The conclusion seems inescapable that God wants some people to suffer horribly, both in this life and the next. How such a being could be described as a loving Father is beyond me. At best, he's a deadbeat dad: at worst, a wife-beater and child-molester.

What you're talking about isn't free will. With free will, God simply doesn't have any kind of control over our choices. This includes controling those choices by how God designs us and the universe around us. Free will means that our decisions regarding good and evil are as autonomous as they would be if creation was not ex nihilo. Determinism favoring theologians tend to argue that the previous statement doesn't make sense unless creation wasn't ex nihilo or God isn't all powerful. My position is that God's omnipotence shouldn't be understood in the literal simplistic sense. God's power can be (and is) limited by God's love. Since I believe that a truly loving God would create beings that have decision making autonomy as if not created ex nihilo, I have no problem saying that God's omnipotence does not encompass controling our decisions based on how we are designed. In short, I think one of your premises (in bold), doesn't apply to my prefered understanding of theology.

[Tekania]

What you're talking about isn't free will. With free will, God simply doesn't have any kind of control over our choices. This includes controling those choices by how God designs us and the universe around us. Free will means that our decisions regarding good and evil are as autonomous as they would be if creation was not ex nihilo. Determinism favoring theologians tend to argue that the previous statement doesn't make sense unless creation wasn't ex nihilo or God isn't all powerful. My position is that God's omnipotence shouldn't be understood in the literal simplistic sense. God's power can be (and is) limited by God's love. Since I believe that a truly loving God would create beings that have decision making autonomy as if not created ex nihilo, I have no problem saying that God's omnipotence does not encompass controling our decisions based on how we are designed. In short, I think one of your premises (in bold), doesn't apply to my prefered understanding of theology.

You never read Job did you?

[Tekania]

2.) What does it mean to be evil?

I feel that it is important in theology that virtues are defined in a positive manner while vices are defined as a negation or lack of virtue. Therefore, to properly define evil, we must start with the correct definition of good. Good is love. Specifically, good is an active love which seeks to promote the well being of others. The negation of this is the attempt to harm others. This is the proper understanding of evil.

Um, your statement is contradictory then... If you assume good = virtue, evil = lack of virtue... Then the inverse (evil counterpart) of good is simply not-good... That is, the inverse of love towards ones fellow man is not-love towards ones fellow man... No need to even go as far as to seek harm, but merely to ALLOW it would be an evil...

Which is pretty much the doctrine of Christ...

[Saxemberg]

What you're talking about isn't free will.

This is the usual response from someone who has never encountered this argument before.

And like others before you, you're quite mistaken. There is nothing deterministic about the world I'm describing. Read my post again. And again, if necessary.

The foremost Christian philosopher of our time, Alvin Plantinga, wrote a whole book attempting to disprove Mackie's argument.

If you think you can refute it with a single short paragraph, then you just don't understand it.

With free will, God simply doesn't have any kind of control over our choices.

Yes.

And in a world where God has no control over our choices, it is possible for a person to choose good in every situation.

Indeed, if it were not possible for someone to choose good in every situation, then God would have exercised prior control over that person's choices: it would have biased their choices toward evil.

Given this fact--that in a world where wills are truly free, and God has no control over our choices, it is possible for a person to choose good every time--it must be possible for a world to exist in which every person chooses good every time, of their own free will.

And given the fact that God allegedly can do anything--anything, it is generally assumed, that does not involve a logical contradiction--it follows that God could have created a world in which it had no control over our choices, where every person chose good every time.

And for that reason, your answer is no answer at all.

Perhaps if I put the argument in the form of a syllogism, your mistake will be clearer to you.

1. God can create any possible world.

2. A world in which everyone freely chooses to do good in every situation, without interference from God, is a possible world.

3. Therefore, God can create a world in which everyone freely chooses to do good in every situation, without interference from God.

QED. And yet, as I pointed out before, God (assuming it exists) has not done so.

[Risottia]

The most common definition of 'god' states that:

a) There is a being that created the universe

b) This being has unlimited ability, or the ability to do anything (Omnipotence)

c) This being has unlimited knowledge, or the knowledge of everything (Omniscience)

d) This being has unlimited compassion, or an unlimited love for its creations (Omnibenevolence)

If god has omnibenevolence, as well as omnipotence and omniscience, then why do evil things happen, or, since if god has the ability to stop any of these things and knows about them and has unlimited love for us, the question becomes why does god allow 'evil' things to happen?

1.You forgot the Omnipresence (existing in all places at the same time).

2.Applying logics, of course Omnipotence, Omniscience and Omnibenevolence aren't compatible each other. Because, if you are able to stop a crime you know it's happening, and fail to do so, you're an accomplice.
But then the theologists will claim that ordinary logics doesn't apply to the Big Invisible Magic Man In The Sky.

The only possible conclusion is that it is impossible to discuss religion within a logical context, if you are to believe what the theologists say. Hence, it would better NEVER to talk about religion, god(s) etc. if you're a believer (see Kant).

[Peaceifia]

Free Will and the problem of evil

Sounds like a harry potter book

[Tekania]

The most common definition of 'god' states that:

a) There is a being that created the universe

b) This being has unlimited ability, or the ability to do anything (Omnipotence)

c) This being has unlimited knowledge, or the knowledge of everything (Omniscience)

d) This being has unlimited compassion, or an unlimited love for its creations (Omnibenevolence)

If god has omnibenevolence, as well as omnipotence and omniscience, then why do evil things happen, or, since if god has the ability to stop any of these things and knows about them and has unlimited love for us, the question becomes why does god allow 'evil' things to happen?

1.You forgot the Omnipresence (existing in all places at the same time).

2.Applying logics, of course Omnipotence, Omniscience and Omnibenevolence aren't compatible each other. Because, if you are able to stop a crime you know it's happening, and fail to do so, you're an accomplice.
But then the theologists will claim that ordinary logics doesn't apply to the Big Invisible Magic Man In The Sky.

The only possible conclusion is that it is impossible to discuss religion within a logical context, if you are to believe what the theologists say. Hence, it would better NEVER to talk about religion, god(s) etc. if you're a believer (see Kant).

In the context of his theology, you are right... Since within his theology "good" is something which exists separately from God... Determinist theology, however, it would not apply... Since good is defined by God.

[Gift-of-god]

The argument from free will is a bad one. The most trivial way to demonstrate this is the fact that most of us do not object to the idea of stopping criminals from harming others, even though it involves depriving them of that freedom.

There is, however, a better one. The argument against God presupposes that there is only one good: human happiness, or welfare, or just treatment, or some such formulation. In fact, however, there may be a multiplicity of goods that God seeks to maximize, some of which are not reconcilable with the greatest good for humans specifically. As an incidental effect of God's multiple loyalties, then, our world appears to us to be less than perfect--but in fact it remains the best of all possible worlds.

But then we can go back to the 'problem' of omnipotence.

Saxmeberg, a few posts upthread, seems to have put it well.

What is stopping the omnipotent god from creating a world where those benfits can still be maximised and syet still has no suffering? If the idea is that god is constrained because maximising some other benefit will inevitably and inherently create human suffering, then god is not omnipotent, as there is something god cannot do, i.e. negate human suffering while maximising whatever other benefit it is.

[Tunizcha]

The argument from free will is a bad one. The most trivial way to demonstrate this is the fact that most of us do not object to the idea of stopping criminals from harming others, even though it involves depriving them of that freedom.

There is, however, a better one. The argument against God presupposes that there is only one good: human happiness, or welfare, or just treatment, or some such formulation. In fact, however, there may be a multiplicity of goods that God seeks to maximize, some of which are not reconcilable with the greatest good for humans specifically. As an incidental effect of God's multiple loyalties, then, our world appears to us to be less than perfect--but in fact it remains the best of all possible worlds.

But then we can go back to the 'problem' of omnipotence.

Saxmeberg, a few posts upthread, seems to have put it well.

What is stopping the omnipotent god from creating a world where those benfits can still be maximised and syet still has no suffering? If the idea is that god is constrained because maximising some other benefit will inevitably and inherently create human suffering, then god is not omnipotent, as there is something god cannot do, i.e. negate human suffering while maximising whatever other benefit it is.

If God was omnipotent, could he be an atheist?

[Jenrak]

One major flaw that needs to be addressed within this particular argument is the possibility that the current world we live in, is in fact, the best God can do. God, while seemingly omnipotent, makes it difficult for us to properly assess. Rather than look at the all the alternatives of a more utopian status for the world, we would be better off looking at the status of a world worse than us, and come to the question; Could God have created the world because, in all the nearly infinite possibility of events, this was the best world he could make?

If so, that creates the problem of whether God has chosen to give us free will or not. If God had given us free will, would we still be where we are today? What if everything was made within God's image without fail, and that we ourselves (metaphorically speaking) were never rejected from Eden? Stagnancy, as proven throughout many events and bodies in history, is a terrible thing for a constantly evolving species such as ourselves, who are always slating for more knowledge and ability. If God had given us paradise, would we have died out due to a stagnancy we would experience?

[Douchebaggerry]

God, while seemingly omnipotent, makes it difficult for us to properly assess.

He clearly isn't omnipotent, if you're talking about the Christian God.

[Soheran]

What is stopping the omnipotent god from creating a world where those benfits can still be maximised and syet still has no suffering?

Classical theologians insisted that omnipotence did not imply that God could violate the laws of logic, e.g. God cannot create a four-sided triangle. (You could make more direct challenges to omnipotence if you disregard that qualifier.) I see no reason to rule out the possibility that some goods might be in principle incompatible with the means necessary to fully eradicate human suffering.

For instance, say that there is some intrinsic goodness to the set-up of natural laws by which the universe runs: if God were to alter them to save human happiness, then some important good would be sacrificed, and it's hard to see how God could ensure happiness without altering them. (But--a theist might further argue--in giving us free will and moral agency He has allowed us the opportunity to save ourselves.)

[Hydesland]

A better argument is if you hold a premise that Gods omniscience enables him to see the future. In that case, God created people knowing full well they were going to cause suffering, or, knowing full well that they would go to hell. A perfectly good God would try not to design humans in such a way, an omnipotent God would be able to choose not to design humans in such a way.