Free Will vs. Freedom From Suffering

[Paul of Tarsus]

Many apologists argue that we must suffer in order to have free will. It's a trade off that even God must bow to--we can either be morally free or free of suffering, but we cannot have both. We are told, for example:

...God can create people who are not morally free. Such a person would never harm anyone else, never fail to do good in any setting, and always be a beacon of right behavior. However, that would be more a machine than a person. A machine is neither good nor bad; it just does as it is programed to do. For people to be capable of genuine good deeds they must also be capable of evil deeds.

The implication here is that free will is the greatest good for us; to have free will is better than to be free of suffering. Or to put it another way, free will is so wonderful that it's worth the cost of sadness, fear, hatred, pain, sickness, dying and death, of course.

I'm not so sure, but what is your preference and why? Which would you choose if you could?

A. Free Will Along with the Attendant Suffering
or
B. A Happy and Peaceful World Full of Robotic Beacons of Light
or
C. A Combination of A and B

[JehovahsWitness]

... God told them that the day they ate the forbidden fruit they would die (which turned out to be wrong, by the way)

No, biblically, what God told them turned out to be right. They did indeed die that very day (2 Pet 3:18 compare Eph 2:1).





JW

For more details please go to other posts related to...

ADAM &EVE, ORIGINAL SIN and ...THE GARDEN OF EDEN

[Purple Knight]

I'm not so sure, but what is your preference and why? Which would you choose if you could?

A. Free Will Along with the Attendant Suffering
or
B. A Happy and Peaceful World Full of Robotic Beacons of Light
or
C. A Combination of A and B

I choose B. That's even assuming I have no right to choose for anyone else. So in a way I'm choosing no free will AND suffering. I want to be a good person like my heroes are. I see perfect people all around me, people who don't sin, who never do anything wrong. I would choose to be one of them if I could.

Now sure, you can say, Purple Knight, you don't really want to be good. You're self-deceiving. If you wanted to be good, you just would be.

True. But the me that's really me would still pull that lever if there was one. Make me a robot. Make me a perfectly moral, perfectly good robot.

Put the lever in front of me. Then, my evil self will have to actually pull it to pull off the deception it's attempting to make you think it really wants to be good. Then it'll be pulled and I'll be good and that's what I want anyway.

[Paul of Tarsus]

I think I understand where the confusion resides. TJump's hypothesis is not that some of our decisions are random but that our decisions have to be either determined by reasons or randomly determined. If none of our decisions are ever randomly determined, this wouldn't disprove the claim that our decisions are determined by reasons rather than being a libertarian freewill choice.

The sentence in bold appears to be self-contradictory. It starts out saying that TJump's hypothesis is not that some decisions are random only to say later that some are.

I don't understand the third sentence.

[Paul of Tarsus]

That would depend on what you mean by "good"; good is a subjective assessment on ones personal worldview and values. What one person calls "good" another might call "bad".

In the context of the human condition "good" is, at least to me, to be free of suffering.

My point exactly, " at least to you " (subjective). To me, In the context of the human condition being free of suffering is not "good". And for someone that enjoyed human suffering, it would be "bad" no matter what the context.

If the issue of the desirability of free will merely boils down to personal preference (some of us think it's great and want it while others prefer to be free of suffering), then the free-will argument has no objective basis to it. In other words, if God allows us to suffer because he needs to grant us free will, then his granting us that free will is only good if you like the idea of having free will enough to say that suffering is worth it.

... God told them that the day they ate the forbidden fruit they would die (which turned out to be wrong, by the way)

No, biblically, what God told them turned out to be right. They did indeed die that very day (2 Pet 3:18 compare Eph 2:1).

You can always make a statement true by using an adept choice of the definitions of the words in that statement. In this case we read that God told Eve and Adam that they would die on the day they ate the forbidden fruit. If we define "day" as a twenty-four hour period, then God obviously got it wrong and the snake got it right because Eve and Adam lived for centuries. Seeing that such an error on God's part cannot be recognized for reasons of maintaining Christian faith, the logical thing to do is to say that "day" means hundreds of years. Problem solved!

[bluegreenearth]

I think I understand where the confusion resides. TJump's hypothesis is not that some of our decisions are random but that our decisions have to be either determined by reasons or randomly determined. If none of our decisions are ever randomly determined, this wouldn't disprove the claim that our decisions are determined by reasons rather than being a libertarian freewill choice.

The sentence in bold appears to be self-contradictory. It starts out saying that TJump's hypothesis is not that some decisions are random only to say later that some are.

I don't understand the third sentence.

Let's consider the possibility that none of our decisions are ever randomly determined as you've suggested. Does it then appear that the only other option is for us to have reasons to compel our decisions? If so, then are our decisions determined by the reasons that compelled them?

[JehovahsWitness]

...if God allows us to suffer because he needs to grant us free will {snip} ...

Well I dont believe this is the case, but it would be interesting to hear'from someone that holds this position.


JW

[JehovahsWitness]

You can always make a statement true by using an adept choice of the definitions of the words in that statement.

I should hope so.

ADEPT

very skilled or proficient at something.

If we define "day" as a twenty-four hour period ...

And contextually, why would we decide to do this ?




JW


RELATED POSTS


Did Adam and Eve really die the day they are from the forbidden tree?
viewtopic.php?p=886229#p886229

[Paul of Tarsus]

If we define "day" as a twenty-four hour period ...

And contextually, why would we decide to do this ?

Here's the same answer to that question that you gave to my questions:________

You have all my rebuttals to your assertions about free will/Genesis 3 back on post #37. Read that if you want any information from me.

[Paul of Tarsus]

Many apologists argue that we must suffer in order to have free will. It's a trade off that even God must bow to--we can either be morally free or free of suffering, but we cannot have both. We are told, for example:

...God can create people who are not morally free. Such a person would never harm anyone else, never fail to do good in any setting, and always be a beacon of right behavior. However, that would be more a machine than a person. A machine is neither good nor bad; it just does as it is programed to do. For people to be capable of genuine good deeds they must also be capable of evil deeds.

The implication here is that free will is the greatest good for us; to have free will is better than to be free of suffering. Or to put it another way, free will is so wonderful that it's worth the cost of sadness, fear, hatred, pain, sickness, dying and death, of course.

I'm not so sure, but what is your preference and why? Which would you choose if you could?

A. Free Will Along with the Attendant Suffering
or
B. A Happy and Peaceful World Full of Robotic Beacons of Light
or
C. A Combination of A and B

Personally, I've never seen, heard or been told by a Christian or others, that Christians believe that to have free will is better than to be free of suffering. I've never been taught or told that free will has any major influence from or on suffering, though I'm sure, if free will is real, it's totally possible. I find the thinking that started the thread quite interesting - thanks for posting!

What is your preference and why? Which would you choose if you could?

[nobspeople]

Many apologists argue that we must suffer in order to have free will. It's a trade off that even God must bow to--we can either be morally free or free of suffering, but we cannot have both. We are told, for example:

...God can create people who are not morally free. Such a person would never harm anyone else, never fail to do good in any setting, and always be a beacon of right behavior. However, that would be more a machine than a person. A machine is neither good nor bad; it just does as it is programed to do. For people to be capable of genuine good deeds they must also be capable of evil deeds.

The implication here is that free will is the greatest good for us; to have free will is better than to be free of suffering. Or to put it another way, free will is so wonderful that it's worth the cost of sadness, fear, hatred, pain, sickness, dying and death, of course.

I'm not so sure, but what is your preference and why? Which would you choose if you could?

A. Free Will Along with the Attendant Suffering
or
B. A Happy and Peaceful World Full of Robotic Beacons of Light
or
C. A Combination of A and B

Personally, I've never seen, heard or been told by a Christian or others, that Christians believe that to have free will is better than to be free of suffering. I've never been taught or told that free will has any major influence from or on suffering, though I'm sure, if free will is real, it's totally possible. I find the thinking that started the thread quite interesting - thanks for posting!

What is your preference and why? Which would you choose if you could?

I'm not sure what 'robotic beacons of light' means, exactly, or how it works in this situation. I don't agree with 'to have free will is better than to be free of suffering', as suffering can build a person more than a 'cakewalk life', so to speak.
I think free will means you're free to do as you please, not that you're free to do as you please without consequence. How that interplays within Christianity is, I guess, up to the Christian asked. On that regard, I don't much care. I don't equate morality with God solely, if that make sense.
Thus, I'm unsure how this fits into your provided choices.