Thanks u/Plemethrock
We can have a discussion on whether or not free will exists. Discuss if every action we do is already predetermined by how our brain is wired, with the environment around us being the inputs.
We can also have a discussion on whether or not humans have souls and analyze the evidence for and against us just being our bodies
(I made an error and had to repost, apologies)
Where did God declare it? The Bible in fact says the opposite that God has numbered all your days before you were born (Psalm 139), that he directs everyone's steps and the apparently random casting of lots (Proverbs 16) and that God creates people for the purpose of saving them or sending them to hell (Romans 9).
Note that free will is not the same as the ability to make choices or personal accountability. Romans 9 says that God holds people accountable even though their choices were predetermined (like the hardening of Pharaoh's heart by God). If one wishes to claim that a person's choices being predetermined entails that they are not morally accountable for their choices then this needs to be argued rather than assumed like free will proponents always do.
I've been under the impression that evil things occur in this world because God gave us free will. I do agree that God has seen past present and future but would that HAVE to mean free will doesn't exist?
The eastern philosophies deal with this quite elegantly imo. They divide things into:
-The Will of Heaven, aka Tianming - this is the path laid down for each soul by God. Call it Destiny, Fate, Predestination, whatever.
-Karma - this is a result or effect of the free will choices we make over our lifetime
So if life is a “Choose your own adventure book” that God authored for us (Will of Heaven), our karma is simply the journey we took along the way
If God knew the future when he created the world then he created things knowing that they would devolve into evil. So then God purposely went ahead and caused all the evil in the world. Does that make God evil? I don't think so, because I think this decision could be justified by the good also caused, but most people aren't comfortable with God being the author of evil.
The idea that God merely permits evil doesn't make sense given that God set everything up knowing how it would turn out, meaning he actively caused everything we witness, not merely permitting it.
As to whether free will exists, that depends how you want to define it and what other things are true. See my top-level comment on this post.
A loving father doesn't coddle his children and make them weak. So why wouldn't our Heavenly Father be the same and give us things to struggle against and grow stronger?
I never said that life doesn't have struggles. Clearly it does. That's separate from whether our will is free or not.
God created all things good. His foreknowledge doesn't make Him an accomplice. What you're saying is basically this: you having children makes you evil, because you have them while knowing they will inevitably suffer and experience evil. But having children is still a net good and you go ahead. What appears bad to us, God uses to make good. Christ was betrayed and crucified but out of this a much greater good came to the world. This is how God operates and us having limited knowledge means we can't foresee and judge how thing ultimately end up. God can do only good because that's His nature.
No, that's a common mistake when critiquing theodicy (problem of evil). Knowing something in advance doesn't make you the cause of it. You conceive of only one type of causality (the domino effect one) - this is the result of materialism being the ruling paradigm in our modern world. But there are other types of causality that were widely accepted before metaphysics was done away with. Humans are secondary causal agents, meaning our will is separate from God's will and what we cause in the world is separate from God's causes.
There's no love without free will but free will inevitably leads to the possibility of evil (not choosing the good). God made us in His image having free will and being capable of love, even at the cost of evil and suffering entering His creation. Therefore love is greater than evil and triumphs in the end when all evil will be destroyed at the final judgement.
The key difference is you or I did not create the universe and all the conditions within it. Evil arises due to the nature of things. We live in a world where essentially every single thing must kill or at the very least rely on death (plants needing decaying organic matter in the soil) to survive. Where primal desires fuel all, or almost all (depending on your perspective) behaviors. Equivocating someone born into this system reproducing to a Being that ostensibly constructed the system this way is not honest
You just agreed with my position (that God causing all the evil in the world doesn't make him evil) while claiming to be arguing against me.
That was never my argument. My argument is this. If a non-deterministic action A makes outcome X a certainty when an alternative action B would have made not-X a certainty then A is the ultimate cause of X. If additionally A is performed by an agent who is aware that A will make X happen while B would have avoided X then the agent deliberately causes X. Therefore if God wasn't pre-determined to create a universe that certainly (as proved by his foreknowledge) led to evil (action A leading to X) and could have chose not to create (action B leading to not-X), but yet he did, it follows that God creating the universe was the ultimate cause of evil in the universe. Additionally God was aware this action would lead to evil in the universe while the alternative would have avoided it, so therefore God deliberately caused evil in the universe.
Which part of this argument is wrong? Notice I said nothing about causing evil being evil, God being morally accountable for causing evil or humans lacking accountability for their role in bringing the evil about.
You need to define what a secondary causal agent is. In a row of dominoes ending with a button you can call the second domino a "secondary causal agent" but it doesn't change the fact that if laws of physics are deterministic then the fall of the first domino causes the button to get pressed. Same thing if a general orders a soldier to kill someone - we say the general caused the death, regardless of the fact that there was a soldier who also caused the death and could have opted to disobey orders.
Citation needed. We all know people can love and make choices yet it is conceivable that these things happen via deterministic mental processes. If you say that a deterministic love cannot be love then you are simply defining love to be something that humans may not be capable of.
Free will of choice can only operate in-between over/under aka as above/so below aka at the center of balance....others suggest good vs evil to tempt choice into imbalance aka against one another.
Good or evil implies a measurement TAKEN (possession) while ignoring God GIVEN (impression) choice. Given implies knowledge (perception); taking implies forbidden knowledge (suggestion).
Agree implies versus disagree aka a conflict binding free will of choice into imbalance against one another.
God implies delineation given...suggested past; present and future implies measurements taken. One cannot take without ignoring given.
While alive (present)...one cannot perceive ones inception (past) or death (future). Others suggest past and future to invert PRESENCE into PRESENT...the former implies ones essence within motion, while the latter represents an affixed position.
Free cannot "have"; hold onto "meaning" or "do nothing (doesn't)" without contradicting itself aka without binding itself.
Others tempts free will of choice with nothing; meaning and things to have into taking a chance...for the price of given choice.
Neither having; meaning, nor doing nothing represents a natural state, but artificial descriptions to distract from nature...only ones free will of choice can discern the difference between reality (perception) and fiction (suggestion).
De (to divide) clare (to clear) aka clarity by division/divination of all (perceivable) into each one (perception).
...binds clarity within covers if consented (to read) to the suggestion (to author) thereof.
God implies the sound within which speech can be shaped; the line within which words can be drawn, and the giver of choice to bind and cover oneself within books by another.
...implies F (icticious) ACT (action). God implies action; anything within a reaction to either God or one another depending on ones free will of choice. Action sets reaction free...fact binds reaction to one another if held onto.
Name/number/nombre implies the designation of a unit/unus/uni - "one"....there can be only one aka all (singularity) and each one (singular unit) within aka God (all father) and each Christ (anointed one).
a) To note implies "to mark"...which tempts ones free will of choice to take notice by marking self, both of which are confining ones free will of choice to another.
b) God implies same...each being within implies a differentiation aka divination from one another. It's the markings suggested as notes by others which equalizes differences by making alike.
God implies all (sound) for each one (person aka per sonos; by sound) within...few suggest creationism and pluralism to tempt many to ignore God.
If God could create, then that implies more than God...that's a contradiction of the one and only God. All generating each one within implies a transference (inception towards death) of essence (life) aka not a creation, but a transformation aka a transfer (momentum) of form (matter) within action (motion).
God implies motion; Spirit implies momentum, Christ implies matter...suggested creationism aka creatio ex nihilo puts "nothing" aka nihil-ism to the mix, which tempts ones de-nial of everything perceivable.
Claiming contradicts FREE will of choice. If one claims, then one generates denial. If one holds onto, then one binds self. If one takes into possession, then one gets possessed. If one counts, then one becomes accountable to accountants.
To wish implies "to want" while ignoring need aka wishing for more than all God offers...that's denial, which generates fulfillment (filling the mind) aka the burden of sin/syn (together with, jointly; alike).
Free implies apart from one another aka differentiated from one another aka anointed (christened) from one another....others suggest likeness to destroy differences.
Matter (life) within motion (inception towards death) has to be separated from one another to reduce friction against one another. Christ (anointed one) implies the lubrication of each matter aka of each seed within s-oil.