I need an eloquent rebuttal for the "God gives free will" argument.
Posted on: November 20, 2007 - 11:52pm
Offline
I need an eloquent rebuttal for the "God gives free will" argument.
I was trying to stump someone today with the riddle of Epicurus, and he was all like "But God gives free will so he isn't responsible," blah blah blah blah blah. When I mentioned that his deity was all knowing and therefore it was impossible to have free will, he REPEATED THE SAME DAMN THING. How do I win this argument?
My Brand New Blog - Jesu Ad Nauseum.
God of the Gaps: As knowledge approaches infinity, God approaches zero. It's introductory calculus.
- Login to post comments
Ask if he thinks we can trick god.
An omniscient creator would know everything simultaneously, so prior to even conceiving an idea, all possible scenarios would be known. It would be impossible to create something without foreknowledge of the outcome.
1) Ask him if Peter actually had a choice when Jesus said Peter would deny him. He will likely reply "yes". Then ask if Peter actually had a choice to prove God wrong, and ask how it is a free choice if one option is rendered impossible by God's nature.
2) Ask where the Bible supports the notion of free will. It doesn't, and if you want I have a list of places where God acts against free will.
Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.
I faced a similar situation and found it easiest to argue by using a simple example.
Me: Did God know I was going to wear my blue striped shirt to work today?
Theist: Of course he did.
Me: And he didn't just know this now; he's known since the beginning of time which shirt I'd be wearing tomorrow.
Theist: Of course.
Me: So if it was known since long before I was born, that on this day I would be wearing my blue striped shirt today, there was no possibilty of me chosing anything different is there?
From this point, the argument generally goes in circles with the Theist saying things like "God always knew, but you didn't, so it's still a choice". One thing it tends to accomplish (at least in discussions that I've had) is that they'll still believe that God grants free will (or at least that an omniscient God is not incompatible with free will), but come to realize that they aren't able to really articulate why it's the case. They fall back onto that old standby "Faith".
It's still a "win" in a sense, because most theists think that the "God grants free will" position is a simple one.
Michael
If God is truly omniscient, then He would be able to create creatures that always truly and freely chose to do the right thing/what He wanted. Free will is no help to the problem of evil.
Methinks your best tactic is to not argue the subject. It is like teaching a pig to sing. All you accomplish is to frustrate yourself and annoy the pig.
If you try to reason with a believer they just argue in circles and cite the Bible. People believe because it answers an emotional need in them. Neither religion or emotions mix well with logic.
Ask them if whether a child of theirs was running off a cliff, would they stop them or would they obey God's rule of not tampering with a person's free will, even if it leads them to eternal damnation?
Ah, but it was god's will that you use your free will in whatever capacity you're able, in accordance with his moral prescriptions.
Then it was God's will to use you to block that child's free will to save him from harm. What more things could he use to prevent further suffering in the world?
If he persisted after you pointed out the problem with omnipotence, it's probably pointless to continue the discussion. Even a moron should be able to see that an omnipotent god can't be wrong, and therefore you do not have free will because to do so you would have to be able to surprise god. If he can't get that, then he's something less than a moron, perhaps more comparable to a turnip, and therefore not worth talking to.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
God doesn't concern himself with the individual decisions we make to use our free will or impose it on others, except in cases of direct intervention. Stopping an event will be evaluated for its alignment with a moral prescription; but interpreting and acting upon that is an individual choice, with reward or punishment understood, rather than with an external coercive force applied.
So why is there free will at all? Well what would the world be like if every good choice was rewared, and every bad choice punished. In a world of perfect justice we would all be slaves, and would never learn anything. Therefore, we are better off with free will, even if it means that sometimes good people have to suffer and evil deeds get rewarded.
But lets try a thought experiment. What if there were two Gods instead of one? Both equally powerful. Lets go further and propose that instead of being mysterious, they just reveal themselves to everybody, not being shy. Lets say that these two Gods are in some kind of competition, for whatever reason, to gain the most followers. They both appear in glorious fashion to the whole world. They both propose rules to live by in order to show loyalty. And they promise rewards for those that follow them. The rules themselves are similar to one another, but occasionally contradictory. How then do you determine which to follow?
Since each God wants more followers, neither is unlikely to propose horrible rules like human or animal sacrifice. As to the rewards, they are only revealed after your obedience is secured, but for competitive reasons the rewards are pretty much equal. If so, it would not matter which you follow. The moral codes are arbitrary and so are the rewards. Either way you choose, your rewards will be the same and your obedience would not matter.
But of course this is not in the Judeo-Christian tradition. So lets say one of the gods is really Satan, but if he revealed himself everyone would know. Lets say God himself, in order to give his creations free will, also does not reveal himself, and does not reward or punish on a regular basis. How could we possibly tell the difference between God and Satan?
When God is bound by free will, then Satan no doubt has the power to imitate God perfectly. Could the authors of the bible really tell the difference between inspiration from God and inspiration from Satan? Does it make a difference? Following God or following Satan, the rewards are the same.
Or, maybe morality is its own reward, sometimes, and immorality leads to suffering, sometimes, and God or Satan have absolutely nothing to do with either, and we live in an imperfect word of our own creation.
And maybe it is for the best, because in a world of perfect justice we would all be slaves, and would never learn anything. Therefore, we are better off in an imperfect world without God, even if it means that sometimes good people have to suffer and evil deeds get rewarded.
Hmmm, well based on that thinking...since atheists can see so much evil that is bandied around in gods name...what if the "god" that theists talk about is actually satan(or his evil equal persona)? What if the "true" god or "good" god, wants us to not enslave ourselves to hate gays, kill people of other faiths, ban scientific study like stem cell research that can make life so much better for millions of people?
What if the truly "good" entity of the universe wanted atheists as its adherents? People not bound by other people's beliefs but using our natural morality to determine how we treat each other?
Does anyone have any security in religion? I was raised Southern Baptist and have often heard others say I am taking an extremely high stake bet. But really, are the southern baptists any safer than me? Heck, no.
What if the Catholics are right? Baptists burn in hell. What if the Muslims are right? Baptists burn in hell. How can a baptist feel all safe and secure with so many variables? Heck, I was raised that once you were saved you were ASSURED salvation. No way to lose it.
So fuck it. If the baptists are right I'm going to heaven. If us atheists are right I'm just going to stop being. If anyone else (practically) is right, I'm screwed. But either way, being a baptist with assured salvation and being a godless atheist is both just as safe.
Doesn't make sense to me. I feel that I am a moral person. I also feel that if such an entity exists that entity would pretty much agree with me. But that's probably just human insanity, plus humans pretty much will only act/live in a way that seems fair and just to their minds.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
Just as a by the way: in the OT animal sacrifice is demanded, in explicit, gory detail.
God's justice as defined by Christianity is not defined on whether a person is good or not, it is based on whether they believe or not. Jesus will forgive any sin except not loving him. How can I believe in a God that created the universe but is such a petty, jealous, needy psycho.
But back to the thread: Any animal with enough of a brain that it can decide whether to go left or right has free will. So free will is obviously a product of evolution.
Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.
Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51
Have you considered reapeatidly punching them in the face until they stop argueing with you?
God must have wanted him to be punched in the face.
So the Bible doesn't support free will? Then where the hell are they getting this free will bullshit from? If God didn't say it, then they're just making this shit up.
Frosty's coming back someday. Will you be ready?
Hell no, brotha.
I want to say Thomas Aquinas but I don't know theologians. But, yeah, they're making shit up.
Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.