Wouldn't it be better not to have freewil?

[OnceConvinced]

Theists tend to defend freewill as something that is just so important that it would be somehow a terrible thing if we did not have it.

However freewill for many people will result in them rejecting God and ending up in Hell, which many Christians believe will be eternal suffering.

I'm struggling to see how freewill is a good thing if it results in us going to Hell and perhaps suffering for all eternity.

I am reminded of a verse in the bible where Jesus says " For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" Mark 8:36

It's saying that riches... and continually seeking riches is not a good thing if it results in you losing your soul... ie going to Hell. It's saying that if something is going to cause us to lose our soul then we should avoid it.

Shouldn't the same thing be said about freewill? Should there not also be a scripture that says "For what shall it profit a man to have freewill and lose his own soul?"

So question for debate:

Would it be better to live on earth with Freewill and suffer for all eternity for rejecting Christ or would it be better to give up your freewill so that you can avoid eternal suffering?

Is freewill really such a necessity for a happy life?

Wouldn't life be better if nobody had freewill so nobody could ever do evil? (Like in Heaven)

[ttruscott]

You have accepted before that no free will means no love and marriage that we respect and then decided that that was better than a life with free will, suffering and death.

Would it not be better to forgo all that stuff to avoid Hell? It's only 80-90 years. Not even a blink in the eye of all eternity. Why would it be a problem for anyone? Gotta be better than going to Hell, right?

Forego free will and suffering if someone so chose? But the heavenly state is a state of full communion likened to a marriage which can only be entered upon by one's free will acceptance of it or it is not a true communion/fellowship/marriage at all. Eternity with GOD is not a rape, but a marriage.

Then the person chooses the right thing to do because they must, not because they want to whether it is to love or to marry. This is no better than a meat robot for important things only, but not for inconsequentials.

Wouldn't' you rather be a meat robot for 80-90 years than burn in Hell? Wouldn't it be worth being a meat robot for 80-90 years to guarantee yourself a place in Heaven?

Robots cannot enter a true marriage based upon true love - they only love and marry by their programming, not their own acceptance.

A free will that cannot choose evil is a logical contradiction... Cannot because they will never, is not.

Why would you even want the option to choose evil? Is that what you yourself desire to have? An option to choose evil if you wish? I'd be happy to forgo that option if it means I can avoid Hell and get a free pass to Heaven.

It is not a question of what we want...without the option to choose evil the mind / will is not free and the heavenly state of a true marriage is not available as it is based on true, not programmed or mechanical love.

Why value freewill if it means one can choose to do evil? I wish guys like Hitler and Joseph Stalin had no freewill. Imagine how better off the world would be if they were unable to chose to do evil? Imagine how wonderful this world would be if nobody could ever choose to do evil. It would be like Heaven!

Solving the problem of evil by denying people free will is to also deny heaven to everyone. Heaven is only accessible thru free will which must also allow sin.

It is a logical inconsistency to suggest that a free will can be curtailed and constrained from some choices but still be called free.

[ttruscott]

IF GOD can make us with desires, HE can also create us free of all desire and let us choose what we like from experience.

That's the point - choose what we like from experience implies out nature is the result of our surroundings, God could control our surroundings without messing with our freewill one bit. That's one way for God to make 100% sure that no one would rebel without limiting our freewill. God failed to do this, therefore we can conclude that God is either not omnipotent, or non existent.

This is interesting..., BUT, then He could never allow any controversy into our experience, never ask us if we wanted a marriage with HIM nor ever introduce HIS deity into our experience ...both of which invite speculation and scepticism. How to get from a manipulated experience in which we never had to chose between any good or bad options to a free will choice to marry seems impossible.

If our choice is at that time manipulated in our experience, how can it be said our choice is free? Does it really matter by what means HE manipulates us to only do what HE wants us to do, since all such things come under the idea of our wills being forced, coerced to be good and constrained from choosing sin, the opposite of 'free.' ie, able to choose without coercion or constraint between all viable options?

[OnceConvinced]

You have accepted before that no free will means no love and marriage that we respect and then decided that that was better than a life with free will, suffering and death.

Would it not be better to forgo all that stuff to avoid Hell? It's only 80-90 years. Not even a blink in the eye of all eternity. Why would it be a problem for anyone? Gotta be better than going to Hell, right?

Forego free will and suffering if someone so chose? But the heavenly state is a state of full communion likened to a marriage which can only be entered upon by one's free will acceptance of it or it is not a true communion/fellowship/marriage at all. Eternity with GOD is not a rape, but a marriage.

No matter what you say, it would be possible to stop someone from desiring to do evil yet still allow freewill to do good. One doesn't just have the choice between doing good and doing evil. Most things we do as humans are neutral, neither good nor evil. Getting married or even turning down a marriage proposal is neither good nor evil.

So no, nobody is forced to accept marriage to God unless of course turning down that proposal is considered evil. Do you see turning down God's offer of marriage as evil?

Then the person chooses the right thing to do because they must, not because they want to whether it is to love or to marry. This is no better than a meat robot for important things only, but not for inconsequentials.

Wouldn't' you rather be a meat robot for 80-90 years than burn in Hell? Wouldn't it be worth being a meat robot for 80-90 years to guarantee yourself a place in Heaven?

Robots cannot enter a true marriage based upon true love - they only love and marry by their programming, not their own acceptance.

I don't agree that just because we have our desire to do evil removed... or there are barriers in place to prevent us do to evil, that would make us robots. There is more to life than just good and evil.

A free will that cannot choose evil is a logical contradiction... Cannot because they will never, is not.

Why would you even want the option to choose evil? Is that what you yourself desire to have? An option to choose evil if you wish? I'd be happy to forgo that option if it means I can avoid Hell and get a free pass to Heaven.

It is not a question of what we want...

Actually in this thread it is. This thread is asking what you would prefer.

What would you rather have? Have your freewill violated and thus get a free pass to heaven or have freewill and end up in Hell?

without the option to choose evil the mind / will is not free and the heavenly state of a true marriage is not available as it is based on true, not programmed or mechanical love

I complete disagree that we would be forced to do good or that we would be forced to love. We can do neutral acts that are neither good nor evil.

Is not-loving someone considered evil in your books?

I myself don't hate anyone, but I don't love everyone.

Why value freewill if it means one can choose to do evil? I wish guys like Hitler and Joseph Stalin had no freewill. Imagine how better off the world would be if they were unable to chose to do evil? Imagine how wonderful this world would be if nobody could ever choose to do evil. It would be like Heaven!

Solving the problem of evil by denying people free will is to also deny heaven to everyone.

Says who? You?

Heaven is only accessible thru free will

Where in the bible does it say this? My bible tells me that the way to heaven is by believing in Jesus (John 3:16) and repenting of sin. (Acts 3:19)

It is a logical inconsistency to suggest that a free will can be curtailed and constrained from some choices but still be called free.

what is logical inconsistency is to say that just because one has their will to sin repressed, that they are forced to do good. Most of what we humans do are neutral acts. There is no need to prevent us from doing neutral acts. We can have freewill to either do neutral acts or good acts. Just not evil acts.

[Bust Nak]

This is interesting..., BUT, then He could never allow any controversy into our experience, never ask us if we wanted a marriage with HIM nor ever introduce HIS deity into our experience ...both of which invite speculation and scepticism. How to get from a manipulated experience in which we never had to chose between any good or bad options to a free will choice to marry seems impossible.

Then so be it because doing that would mean literally everybody being in heaven and not one person in hell, there wouldn't even be a hell. Tell me that is not preferable to what your alternative is.

If our choice is at that time manipulated in our experience, how can it be said our choice is free? Does it really matter by what means HE manipulates us to only do what HE wants us to do, since all such things come under the idea of our wills being forced, coerced to be good and constrained from choosing sin, the opposite of 'free.' ie, able to choose without coercion or constraint between all viable options?

Without constraint of some sort it would be completely random. Even simply telling us that not believing God is who he say he is mean hell, is in itself a constraint: your decision to believe him or not is now informed by his claim. Ironically, being told that if you don't believe him then you would end up in hell for all eternity, is the second only to immediate physical violence when it comes to coercion/constraining free will.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 49 by Bust Nak]


Quote:
Should God change the environment and stop procreation because some have animal urges and can't control themselves?

YES!!! And change everything else that are opportunities to sin.

Quote:
Some might prefer being rabbits to humans, they don't have freewill Very Happy
Actually that's brilliant thought; why create humans, more goates and apple trees and monkeys...

Good to see someone gets what I am saying: A world without human is a world without sin."

One thing we can not ask God to change is to do away with humans so you are stuck - with being human. It appears he likes us.
You said: 'change everything else that are opportunities to sin'.
Care to give some examples?

[ttruscott]

So no, nobody is forced to accept marriage to God unless of course turning down that proposal is considered evil. Do you see turning down God's offer of marriage as evil?

Yes since no one who accepted HIS deity would turn HIM down, the rejection supposes that they first had to reject HIS deity by committing themselves to the idea that HE was lying about being our GOD and therefore, as a false god (blasphemy against the Holy Spirit) which is not a good start and second, they do so knowing HE that if HE ever does prove HIS divinity, they will be doomed but proceed to reject HIM anyway, choosing to end in hell rather than in any relationship with HIM in heaven. Sounds pretty sinful to me...

I don't agree that just because we have our desire to do evil removed... or there are barriers in place to prevent us do to evil, that would make us robots. There is more to life than just good and evil.

But our moral stance permeates every thought we have...either we are in accord with GOD or we are not. Nothing is neutral. It was Jesus who apparently claimed that a sinner is enslaved by sin which I assume means the sinner is addicted to sin which clouds his mind and corrupts his judgements to some extent in every thought.

Heaven is only accessible thru free will

Where in the bible does it say this? My bible tells me that the way to heaven is by believing in Jesus (John 3:16) and repenting of sin. (Acts 3:19)

So if someone hypnotises you to believe in Christ you will be saved? I think not... Faith must be a sincere expression of hope and belief, not a mere running with the crowd and jumping on the bandwagon.

It is a logical inconsistency to suggest that a free will can be curtailed and constrained from some choices but still be called free.

what is logical inconsistency is to say that just because one has their will to sin repressed, that they are forced to do good. Most of what we humans do are neutral acts. There is no need to prevent us from doing neutral acts. We can have freewill to either do neutral acts or good acts. Just not evil acts.

Sure, I understand this pov, I just don't share it because I do not accept the meaning of the words. A curtailed free will is not free. A constrained free will is not free.

The fact that we would be free to do neutral acts does not have anything to say about being forced by our creation as constrained from sinful, hateful acts, to do only "good, not evil" things. Yet is not the moral quality of good partly because it is chosen? Is a robot doing surgery a morally good machine? The machine is not good nor can its acts be considered morally good, only competent or incompetent. A mechanical act is one that the doer must do because it is designed to do it and a mechanical act has no moral value. If that doer is a person who must only do good and cannot ever do evil, then it is mechanical and not morally good at all.

[ttruscott]

This is interesting..., BUT, then He could never allow any controversy into our experience, never ask us if we wanted a marriage with HIM nor ever introduce HIS deity into our experience ...both of which invite speculation and scepticism. How to get from a manipulated experience in which we never had to chose between any good or bad options to a free will choice to marry seems impossible.

Then so be it because doing that would mean literally everybody being in heaven and not one person in hell, there wouldn't even be a hell. Tell me that is not preferable to what your alternative is.

No sir, there would be no heaven and no possibility of a Biblical heaven which is a full loving and holy commitment to full communion and marriage which cannot happen if no one is free to love but only 'love' because they are programmed to 'love'. You may indeed be happy with mechanical love but I still contend that GOD is not.

No free will denies us the ability for true love, replacing it with mechanical, other induced (not chosen) 'loving' acts, words and feelings.
It denies us true worship.
It denies our moral goodness and righteousness.

If our choice is at that time manipulated in our experience, how can it be said our choice is free? Does it really matter by what means HE manipulates us to only do what HE wants us to do, since all such things come under the idea of our wills being forced, coerced to be good and constrained from choosing sin, the opposite of 'free.' ie, able to choose without coercion or constraint between all viable options?

Without constraint of some sort it would be completely random. Even simply telling us that not believing God is who he say he is mean hell, is in itself a constraint: your decision to believe him or not is now informed by his claim.

This answer confuses an influence with a force or constraint. Neither a true force nor a constraint can be resisted. The warning of hell is not a constraint as proven by the many many people who ignore it or denigrate it as a lie...some constraint, eh?

Not being able to choose something is a real constraint; being warned of the consequences is an attempt to influence our decision but which we can ignore or accept so it is NOT a constraint nor a 'force'. Your definitions of constraint and force suit your position but they are not proper to describe HIS warnings of consequences.

[liamconnor]

Freewill, Reason, Consciousness (the ability to think 'I', 'me', 'you' etc.) are all part and parcel of what distinguishes us from the lower forms of life and inanimate matter.


With this status comes bad things; but with it comes good things (conscious happiness and joy).

The question has ignored the stuart maxim: it is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied.

Now, if so, it is infinitely better to be a human satisfied than a pig satisfied. Thus freewill is an available grace.

The complaint of this thread is that God should have made a world of satisfied pigs, instead of making a world in which both satisfied humans and dissatisfied humans are possible.

I think the complaint is nonsensical. I doubt anyone here really wishes they were a happy pig or a rock.

[benchwarmer]

Freewill, Reason, Consciousness (the ability to think 'I', 'me', 'you' etc.) are all part and parcel of what distinguishes us from the lower forms of life and inanimate matter.


With this status comes bad things; but with it comes good things (conscious happiness and joy).

The question has ignored the stuart maxim: it is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied.

Now, if so, it is infinitely better to be a human satisfied than a pig satisfied. Thus freewill is an available grace.

The complaint of this thread is that God should have made a world of satisfied pigs, instead of making a world in which both satisfied humans and dissatisfied humans are possible.

I think the complaint is nonsensical. I doubt anyone here really wishes they were a happy pig or a rock.

This is all very interesting, but are you suggesting that pigs don't have freewill or are unable to be dissatisfied?

I prefer to be a human because I am able to do more things as a human. I have 'better' capabilities than a pig.

If the choice were to be a pig or a worm is the choice equal for you? Why choose one over the other? It seems you are implying (I will stand corrected if not) that only humans have freewill, thus all other life forms are somehow 'satisfied' and unable to have freedom of choice or satisfaction.

If this is your belief, clearly you have never had a pet cat. They show clear signs of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. They also seem to enjoy displaying their freewill. They even appear to use rudimentary reason to sort out how to get you to do their bidding.

If I've completely misunderstood and erected a fine 'straw cat' I apologize and look forward to what you mean.

[ttruscott]

If I've completely misunderstood and erected a fine 'straw cat' I apologize and look forward to what you mean.

I suggest that anything with dna cannot have a free will because they did not choose their dna yet it defines their whole life. Dna things can choose but they are not free willed.

Humans have a greater problem than other dna based beings IF we accept that we are sinners and that sin enslaves the mind, clouding and corrupting every decision we make, contra our free will.