Free Will Defence - Does it Solve the Problem of Evil?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 เม.ย. 2023
- Join George and John as they discuss and debate different philosophical ideas. In this video they will be looking into the Free Will Defence argument to see if this in fact solves the problem of evil.
The Free Will Defence argument claims that an all loving all powerful God gave humans free will and therefore the freedom to commit evil actions. Watch as this theory is explained and debated along with the Transworld Depravity version.
Check out the Philosophy Vibe paperback anthology, volume 1 "Philosophy of Religion" available on Amazon:
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B092H42XCS
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B092H42XCS
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B092H42XCS
![ภาพนี้ก็ฮาเหมือนกันนะเนี้ย #1 SS8 [ พากย์นรก MEME.EXE ] | easy boy](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ytc50m91QK8/mqdefault.jpg)
Check out the Philosophy Vibe paperback anthology, volume 1 "Philosophy of Religion" available on Amazon:
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B092H42XCS
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B092H42XCS
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B092H42XCS
Here's something I think about: with the guy coming across the money and the 3 options, how do we have the certainty (that seems to be assumed) of what the "good" option actually is? What if he "guards the money" (what you would go in thinking must be the good option) and he ended up guarding it for a person who then used it to buy weapons and do harm? In that case was leaving it or taking it actually the "good" option and we just couldn't comprehend that? My head hurts 😅
This depends on the definition of morality used, which obviously complicates this.
What you described is consequentialism, the idea that whether an action is good or bad is determined by its outcome.
But many would say that it is not the outcome, but the intention of an action that determines its morality.
Some might even argue from a somewhat hedonistic perspective: stealing is the morally correct action, if it makes the person stealing happy.
Then there is also the question whether good or bad even exist at all, and whether they are universal or not.
But I think a theist needs to believe in the existence of universal good and bad.
@@FafliXx Or you could say it's transactional - that one weighs the costs and benefits of all possible actions to determine what the net effects of each are.
@@RustyWalker Utilitarianism? Or are you referring to something different?
@@FafliXx Excellent points. However, the problem of evil as proof against a tri-omni God assumes the existence of good and evil, even if you redefine as wellbeing and suffering. I think you'll have a hard time convincing people that there is no "good or evil"/"wellbeing or suffering".
Adding to FafliX's response, I think morality as judged in the real world is not-entirely-predictable mix of intent and consequence. Intent is given more weight in most situations yet sometimes a bad decision with good intent can lead to bad enough consequences that some people will consider it inevitably immoral. Unless, that is, we distinguish between punishment for immorality and punishment for damages (regardless of intent).
I think the freedom vs choice argument presented in this video is incredibly flawed.
The options given to Adam are just: take money, leave money, guard money.
Firstly, in a world where there is no evil, leaving the money is a perfectly valid decision because no one would steal it.
A world without evil doesn't mean everyone has to perform the exact same good deeds. Good can exist in a spectrum, where you do not have to perform a task in a way creates the MAXIMUM amount of good possible. You're allowed to be lazier than that if you wanted. Not to mention that people are allowed to do things that are NEUTRAL, neither good nor bad.
Everyone can be forced to do no evil while choosing their own hobbies and goals. Different types of careers, what to wear, create art and music that all varies from one another.
Free will ABSOLUTELY can exist while lacking the freedom to act in intentionally evil ways.
Lacking evil choices does not mean that we don't have a million other choices to make.
Even if Adam could only do as much good as he could manage, he doesn't have all the information needed to make a perfect decision.
He doesn't know where the owner of the money is or if he/she will return, so he'd have to assert his free will to decide how to go about saving this person's money.
Another option that is left out of this example is to take the money with intent to find the owner and return it to them directly.
If the owner didn't realize that the money is missing, its possible that the owner doesn't even know where it is in the first place, so waiting for the owner is possibly the least productive decision.
I agree with you that the world is full of choices that don't involve choosing evil vs. good. I made a boat-load of free will choices yesterday and none involved good vs evil. The choice to pray to God vs not pray to God, go to church or not go to church, should be enough of a choice to decide if I get into heaven or not (assuming that hell is nothing more than not being in the presence of God). Also, I'd like to see YOU successfully "find the owner" of an unmarked bag of money. I believe the standard modern option is to take the money to the police.
@@AndyAlegria I'm confused by your response.
In my first comment that you're replying to, I listed a number of examples of expressions of free will that are not necessarily good or evil. The beginning of your comment lists things that seem to be directly related to good or evil expressions of free will from a theological perspective. It seems like you're being sarcastic, but that's hard to read from text, thus, my confusion.
It also SEEMS like you're arguing that our choices between good and evil are necessary for determining if we are worthy of heaven. This is a debate that we cannot reasonably have without agreeing to existence of heaven. You're free to believe in that stance, but I don't agree with it. If you're trying to convince me of this argument, you'd have to first convince me that god and heaven exist. Since I don't, being told that its necessary for heaven is not an argument I can personally accept.
You also seem to think that my assertion that "finding the owner" is ridiculous, and you suggest that the bag of money in the video's example is unmarked. It was not stated that the money is unmarked, nor was it stated that there weren't other objects or markings in or on the bag that could be used to identify the owner.
Even if there wasn't, bringing the money to the police or similar authority is still perfectly reasonable. Even if it wasn't, TRYING to identify the owner could still be considered a good action. Your argument seems to be that it's too difficult to find the owner that way, but the difficulty of the task isn't relevant. The morality of the choice is.
@@feignsanity I can see how I uninentionally confused you. First, I agreed with you that there are plenty of free will choices every day that don't involve evil. Second, I gave examples of choices that break God's laws but cause no one to suffer, showing that evil/suffering is not required to demonstrate a devotion to God, or lack thereof. Thus, evil/suffering is not required for free will, nor is evil/suffering required to chose for or against God (unless evil is broadly defined as not following God and his laws). I also do not believe in heaven, but the premise of Christianity (and the video) is that you can't get into heaven if you do unrepented evil. I agree that IF the bag of money identifies an owner, by all means, return it to the owner. You are correct that the video doesn't say it is unmarked. However, given the three options that were presented in the video, I assumed it was unmarked or "return the money" would have been an obvious fourth choice. And you are correct that the difficulty of choices is irrelevant when the question is good vs. evil in a world where God's laws are absolute. The solution to free will without evil is for God to have made evil undesireable. Most adults could choose to eat dirt but do not because it is undesireable. In such a world, you COULD choose to do evil, but most would not want to.
Confined free will
How could a mother, with _immense love for their child_ possibly be happy in heaven knowing
their child has been annihilated, at best, or worse is suffering eternal hellfire ?
Good question!
There are many examples of this, noah’s son for example, who didn’t follow his father and refused to get on the arch
@@IhaaabI think you may be mistaken because in the Christian Bible, all of Noah's sons (including all of their wives) entered the ark, his sons were Shem, Ham and Japheth... according to Genesis 7:13
Because in Heaven, we are with God, and thus don't lack anything, and thus have no reason to be sad.
@@funwithfacts19 So when you are with God in heaven, you will no longer care about the immense suffering (hellfire), of the people whom you loved in life ? WOW
*Does God give you a lobotomy ?*
amazing as always! I just had this conversation earlier and this video helps me iron out some details. Natural evil can't be accounted for with an omnibenevolent god.
what about the problem of natural evil?
I believe it can certainly be explained, for example Augustine's defence where he states that natural evil is a just punishment for the fall of man.
For who said it was evil?
Evil has always been portrayed as something coming from consciousness, how could "Natural Evil" happen when Nature is neither good nor bad? Its Nature, the cycle of life, "but when a child dies from a disease or a disaster that kills people, why does God let that happen?" In the same way that God prefers not to interfere in our lives, God could not interfere in Nature as a whole, if he did so he would be preventing it from flowing as a whole, if we assume that God really exists and he is omnibenevolent then when a disaster like this happens to someone, that person already gains eternity with him, because Nature acted against that person, God did not prevent it, but rewards you anyway because he is fair
@@wraves693 i like this answer
I love this channel :)
The problem of evil is always fascinating no matter how many times I think about it.
The most interesting conclusion (and possibly the one that makes the least sense to draw as a human being) is that if Adam (as we understand him in a world where we are free to commit both good and evil) does not exist in a world where only good is possible, then whether he exists or not in that world is of little consequence, because his non-existence in that world is conducive to universal good.
Have they ever done a steel man on the problem of evil? They both seem to be agnostic. This seems far from a "steel man". Have you ever heard arguments on the problem of evil not in this video? I am not a philosopher and I have heard several not included in this video.
Earth is much like a video game . We helped God Adam Jesus and the holy Spirit make it . We didn't make a boring game that only good happens. We decided to put on a veil so we couldn't remember God so we could be tested in this simulation. Now we will see if your good or evil since your not sure or not if your being watched. It's not about evil happens its about you signing up to play this .
I do really appreciate your videos. Will you create a second part of it to cover the religious solution to the problem of natural evils?
I was so Adam the other day in front of the casino, a lot of money on the ground, I stuck and could not move when someone else got to the money before me. I do not feel so bad now after watching this😁
lol
In option 2, I can counter I don't really have free will because when I flap my arms, I can't fly. I should be able to freely choose to fly, yet I can't because I'm not physically able to make that choice. There is always going to be *something* that you cannot freely choose to do because of limitations, so why have you arbitrarily singled out *this* one and declared it's a contradiction?
Free will concerns your ability to do things that have a certain moral status. Your inability to fly is just a limitation of who you are and doesn’t concern morality.
@@bourbon2242 No, free will has nothing to do with morality. Tornado can kill milions and cause huge property damage, we can legitimately blame it, but it has no freedom and no will.
@@bourbon2242 The reason I wished to fly was to save a small child from a burning building.
@@RustyWalker That’s just a desire to do good when it isn’t possible, but free will concerns the actual act of choosing between right and wrong when it’s possible. For example, I could wish that I had more money so I could donate to my favourite charities, but that doesn’t actually enter me into the dilemma of whether to donate it to charity or spend it on some nice clothes.
@@bourbon2242 You do know we're talking about an omnipotent God, don't you? Are you saying it's not possible for God to give me the ability to fly to save small children from burning buildings?
Well done.
Thank you
Not having evil would change how people are as they are now, which is the entire point of the question posed!
But the problem of evil shows is it even necessary to begin with
I think the missing link is the "utopia" factor depends on happiness, not on love. Love demands there be a cost, a sacrifice, a surrender of self along with what self wants. Also, for love to be seen as unconditional, it must be seen in more than just the condition of utopia.
1- Plantinga's essence theory;
2- God's omnipotence;
3- if 1 and 2 then it's possible that god creates a world x such that in x there are no individuals with evil-essence (individuals like adam);
C- so, it's possible that god creates a world x such that in x there are no individuals with evil-essence ( individuals like adam ).
It seems that world x can exist compatibly with free will.
Does god have free will? If so, how is it compatible with his Omnibenevolent nature? If not, then please explain. Just curious. Great video!
I’ve thought the exact same thing with regards to the answer to euthyphro that classical theism puts forth. If God’s nature is necessary and immutable then he isn’t choosing to be all good, that’s something that is necessary to his existence so good just becomes ubiquitous to him
can you explain compatibility of free will with PSR am having difficulty in obtaining a second opinion
Finding money in the street wouldn't _necessarily_ constitute theft. A small amount of money, even if found in a bag, would be unlikely to be sought by its owner and given up for lost. Therefore, it does not follow that taking it would be theft. Unfortunately, we fall into a heap of sand or line drawing trying to define "how small is a small amount of money" because the answer is subjective to the context and it couldn't be reasonably expected that the person finding the money could know that. £10 is a lot of money to a person out of work and would buy them food, if they shopped smart, for a week.
Very good Points, you have great ideas. now regarding "free will" and theistic determinism if we are to believe i Newton's Third Law: Action & Reaction
His third law states that for every action (force) in nature, there is an equal and opposite reaction. So in that sense the evil would only be doing the opposite of what it was. created for, there allowing freewill to happen,
Evil has always been portrayed as something coming from consciousness, how could "Natural Evil" happen when Nature is neither good nor bad? Nature is the cycle of life, "but when a child dies from a disease or a disaster that kills people, why does God let that happen?" In the same way that God prefers not to interfere in our lives, God could not interfere in Nature as a whole, if he did so he would be preventing it from flowing as a whole, if we assume that God really exists and he is omnibenevolent then when a disaster like this happens to someone, that person already gains eternity with him, because Nature acted against that person, God did not prevent it, but rewards you in any way because he is fair
The final monologue nails it.
I, for one, despite potentially not having total free will in such a scenario, would rather live in World X. I don't want people to have _true_ free will if that means they can choose evil - I'd rather have some form of restricted free will, if we elect to call it that. I'd rather have a world wherein which evil is nonexistent. After all, choice can still exist without evil, as not all choices are based on a good/evil dichotomy; so it's not like we'd be purely robotic. We can change nature, both human and universal, to lack evil things.
Though it's also debatable on what's evil and what's not... and if we even have free will as it stands (determinism)... but this comment is long enough lol.
Yeah but some good choices can lead to evil endings. You pretty much wouldn't be able to live your own life, everything would be played out according to a strict fate. Also, determinism is a concept that is compatible with free will, and beyond philosophical inquires I don't think there is anything to suggest that we don't have free will.
The thing is you have just described what many Christians believe heaven to be like
Even if we accept that the 'Free Will Defence' rationalises the suffering caused by human choices - we are then faced with a further equally important question: Is God indifferent to the immense daily suffering caused by the natural world He created? How could the 'free Will Defence'' explain cancer in children? Or Tsunamis?
Who says god has to be bound by the logical constraints which we we do. Surely god can choose his own logic to follow since omnipotence has no bounds. Just because something seems illogical to us it won’t for god
The problem is that would mean that belief in god is fundamentally illogical, you might as well say the great unicorn alphadas made the world at that point
@@ayushsharma8804How is the concept of Gods omnipotence without boundaries fundamentally illogical?
To my mind, the final point is the most important one - natural evil. Perhaps evil is not the best word for it, however there is so much suffering caused by things outside of human control. This is why, as far as I'm concerned, the free will argument is at best limited and does not come even close to resolving the problem. I wish that Christians would stop using it as the standard 'go to' argument every time the issues of suffering and evil arise.
I think there is no difference between moral and natural evil. What is evil? Suffering, murder, theft? Physiological states and behaviour which is based on impulses of our brain which evolved in competitive environment. Just like goodness which is based on cooperation and prosocial behaviour.
7:15 desire should be person centric rather than world
Means, one's desire create one's personality and give one a sense of self means free will
But how you distinguish between what's outside me and what's inside.
What is self?
Empathy versus addiction / Narcissism drives people to do good or evil. Modesty, humility, the Golden Rule, seeing this world as flawed.
Maybe this is a test for the ideal world?
This existence for each of us in this existence, whatever this is, is ephemeral. Thinking of the free-will defense, this existence could possibly be preliminary (or even co-occuring) for an ideal world.
In other words, we are living in a simulation with the gift of sentience, a test of sorts.
If there wasn't so much evil in the world a person wouldn't be so stressed out that they would misplace a bag of money. Also losing the bag of money wouldn't bring him any real harm because people would be always working for the collective good and the person who lost the money would be taken care of by the community. So the example wouldn't happen or would be irrelevant.
One has to look at what the goal of free will is. That goal could be reached in any number of ways that don't require the pervasiveness of evil. Anything is possible if you are the ultimate creator/planner.
In the example that you gave, couldn’t god prevented him from taking the money while still allowing him to choose between leaving the money or guarding the money, thus preventing him from doing evil while still having free will?
6:11 That's a tempting argument but wrong. Let's say there are 3 worlds: ours (where both good and evil exists), world E (where only what we'd call evil exists, but no good), and world G (where only what we'd call good exists, but no evil). It is clear that in worlds E and G, different actions take place all the time: in world E, some people are tortured, and no one is loved; and in world G, no one is tortured, and everyone is loved; etc. It's clear that these are different kinds of things, even if the people in worlds E and G don't have a basis for comparison. So you don't need evil for good to exist, and vice versa.
What’s the “logical contradiction” in Hod creating a world in which people always choose the good?
What’s p and -p?
Also, God could have created a world in which “evils” that cause physical or mental harm do not get chosen, but sins against property are options
For instance no one ever chooses to kill, rape, torture but you can steal candy, smash a window etc
Let’s also not forget heaven has free will but no evil
Class video
Thank you!
I dont know if this was on purpose or if anyone else realized it, but making the character in an argument about freewill be named Adam is kinda funny imo.
Option 2 is actually the “good” option
If there is no way to determine the lawful ownership of the money, taking it is a moral option. If you found a quarter lying on a sidewalk with no one else in view who could of lost it, taking it isn't theft. With larger sums, making an effort to determine ownership becomes increasingly important - and turning such money over to the police is the moral choice - as if no one can claim legal ownership, it will be returned to you.
If Adam were to take the money and do that, then he has made a moral choice, and Susan, who simply guards the money to be turned over to whomever first claims it, may have given the money to a liar, and has not only made an immoral choice, but may now be an accessory to an actual crime.
Excellent point on the natural evils of natural god permits "IF" god was to exist. Nicely explained. Well done 👍
Thank you, glad you enjoyed.
@philosophyvibe you should check rationality rules
I think that the desire to do evil is not essential to us, because we can resist it, and it gets weeker if we resist it. Did God give us these desires only for us to have something to struggle against? And will we not be free from these desires in the eternal life? I think that the value of freedom is equal to the best alternative that we are free to choose. We shall not defend the existense of these desires, as if they were actually something good and neccesary, we shall resist them. Why they exist is a mystery.
One question I have is in world x, where humans only choose good, wouldn’t Adam be able to choose to leave the money and walk away? Because in that world , no one else Is going to steal it, so there’d be no reason to guard it. I’ve heard Singapore is like this.
I was thinking the same! So he would still be free to choose between all good thinks..
Agreed. Another commenter said the same thing. There is also the left out option of taking the money to the police, who are better equipped to get it to the proper owner. However, the video wasn't really about the bag of money problem, that was just an example. All they needed was to show that there was a choice between at least two options that were not evil.
Same is the case with Japan. But this doesn't mean the absence of evil but it is the social conditioning to counter the evil within consciously through cultural norms. Therefore free will has all possibilities for good and evil and the preference is heavily depended on how controlled to be against the act of evil one was raised in any society. Ergo, we can say human built societies allow restricted free will which have constraints because of moral relativism.
Problem of evil should be dealing with the question of whether morality is objective or subjective. Relativistic or subjective morality is a system of control but objective moralism is or does allow free will to be exercised as a sovereign individual just the way as it is.
So, I think the question of the Problem of Evil can be answered if one understands morality is objective.
@@ai10oz I do not understand why you think there is a difference between subjective and objective morality with regards to free will. Whether it is the universe or society that says taking the bag of money is evil, I still have the same choices. Why do you think society's rule against theft is any less controlling than God's (or the universe's) rule against theft?
@@AndyAlegria Universe or the physical and biological agency never involve in theft of another agency unless survival is in threat and hence act upon it appropriately (to steal another's agency - food) for survival. Also, I add this point here that biological agency is free of constraints because there is no morality involved as in like the case of human morality. That's why physical or biological agency is always unknown but deterministic and objective in its expression (survive or survive and procreate).
Whereas in human morality or power to exercise free will as in in its expression that's extended above physical or biological agency through evolutionary mechanism which one identifies as psychological agency as identified by social identity is relativistic or subjective in its expression. Why would I say that? It's because if physical or biological agency is objective then human made law should also be objective. Which means human laws are redundant regardless of society or culture one follows. But the social reality is different. We see human morality based on human laws differ from region to region across different cultures and societies. Human law and morality exists for status quo which isn't aligned with laws of physical or biological agency.
I think laws of nature doesn't differ across globe and thus moral principle that emerged out of it should also be objective across the globe.
Hello, I enjoyed the video and think you guys do a wonderful job at summarizing philosophical concepts. I wanted to address the video you brought up here about Theological Determinism however. I watched the video, and feel as if there is a little point that is briefly brought up, but wasn't fully explored.
In the video it was said, that it's possible that God exists "outside of time" and is able to perceive your entire timeline in one "moment." It is then said, that even if that was the case, all your actions were determined, meaning you actually don't have free will, because all your actions are set in stone.
However, I don't think this actually disproves free will. You brought up that God in this case can essentially read your life like a book, front to back. All your decisions you made, but all are now written down. Doesn't this mean you could still make that decision? So God created you as a character in the book, but then the simulation was ran so that all the words in the book were written, and God has the ability to see over all the decisions that you made. Therefore, you still had free will, and God is still omnipotent.
If Adam's essence is being a thief, and that is why he chooses to steal, then he no longer has free will. Just as Susan's good nature doesn't allow her to steal, Adam's prevents him from not stealing.
More over, to even be considered as a possible defense to anything, free will must be demonstrated. Do we have free will or not? That itself is impossible to determine.
Also, in a world where only moral actions are possible, "guarding the money" is not an option either. No one who doesn't lawfully own the money would take it, so guarding it is a waste of time and effort. Leaving the money for it's owner to collect it, or perhaps seeking out the owner yourself become the only two options.
Also also, taking money abandoned in a public place isn't stealing, and isn't immoral. If you found a quarter on the sidewalk, and picked it up, have you committed theft? Not only is it not immoral, but the wasting resources that could otherwise be used for good is itself immoral. If there is no way to determine the lawful owner of the money, then Adams action to take it for himself becomes the moral one, while leaving it behind or guarding it become the immoral choices.
If Adam, by virtue of being Adam, is depraved in all possible worlds, can it be said that Adam has free will?
If evil necessarily results from the existence of Adam, is Adam free, or do the dominoes just fall inside him, instead of outside?
According to the Bible, the presence of sin explains the evils of nature. Someone could make the free will defense (which I do not) and address the suffering nature causes by saying it exists due to man's free choice to sin.
_Lessons not required ?_
What's the point of learning lessons about evil & suffering, if only to end up spending eternity,
_(millions, billions, trillions of years, ect),_ in a place, (heaven), that is free of evil & suffering ?
*(pointless suffering)*
If God was all powerful, all good, and all knowing, God would know what would keep Adam from stealing the money, would have the power to give him what he wants that would keep him from stealing the money, and would love him enough to want to give him whatever would keep him from doing the evil act.
The purpose of life isn’t for god to give us the best life possible, we are promised that in heaven, the possibility of evil is necessary for judgment since if the only options humans had was ‘good’ then what are they going to be judged on?
@@Ihaaab yes, I'm aware that is what christian doctrine dictates. Now just prove it.
@@wj2036 there is nothing to prove, If you believe there is a god, then you’ll believe what I said, if you don’t believe in god you won’t, there is nothing I can possibly say that will change your mind
@@wj2036 don’t you see that the human nature is bad? And that we were purposefully created that way? It’s hard to be a good man and do good, and easy to be hedonistic and a bad person, you don’t get any advantage from telling the truth and being honest, but you’ll gain many advantages by lying and manipulating, this is what we’ll be judged by, our choices, we both have free will and don’t at the same time, we didn’t choose to be this way, but we have a choice if we want to follow our nature or fight against it, and sorry for my english it’s my third language
@@Ihaaab To answer your question, no, I don't see human nature as bad. But if believing in a God is what keeps you from raping and killing, then I suggest you continue believing.
There are at least 3 problems with the free will defense. Firstly, if one were to assume it is true (which I don’t think it is) then it comes at a hefty price for the theist. Since god cannot intervene in any way in our lives else it would violate our free will, praying and asking god would become useless; he cannot and will not do anything you ask for no matter how hard and how much you prayed, you’ll only be met with silence. Moreover, how can the defense account for all the times god intervened in the biblical stories? Like Sodom and Gomorrah or when he drowned the earth in Noah’s ark or when he allowed Moses to split the sea and make the pharaoh drown with his troops. In all of these situations god intervened directly in the lives of his supposed creation and denied people from enacting their supposedly god-given free will.
Secondly, what about heaven? Heaven is portrayed as a utopian blissful place where no one is permitted to do any evil act, you cannot kill, rape, steal, etc. and you’re permitted to do good acts only. So it sounds like that we won’t have free will in heaven and according to the defense, this is worse than having free will even if everyone would live in a utopia, so it seems that this world that we live in is better than heaven.
Finally, the notion of free will is very ambiguous and any discussion about it without a firm definition won’t be fruitful. However, If we were to take the definition of free will to be: to be able to make decisions within our natural limitations, then I don’t see any problems with god creating humans with the limitation of not being able to commit evil acts. Imagine with me that there is a criminal chained to a bed, the criminal cannot break out of his chains and leave, does this mean he doesn’t have free will? I think most would say he does, he still has access to his thoughts, he can think, he can move his limbs, be it in a restrictive manner, etc. similarly, I wish to grow wings and fly, but I cannot do that, does that mean I do not have free will? According to the definition I used, I do have free will, it’s just that my natural limitation doesn’t allow me to grow wings, so if we apply the same to evil acts, that is make it where our natural limitation doesn’t allow us to commit evil acts, it doesn’t seem that we all of a sudden won’t have free will.
That's not exactly true, praying for God to do something doesn't mean your free will is affected. If God makes it rain or drowns the earth for instance, that's not him affecting free will- the people being drowned or being caught in rain still have free will to react in any way they want. To further my point, if God forced Moses to split the sea- that would be interfering with free will. But God didn't force him to do that, Moses with his own free will, asked for God to split the sea for him.
There can be many explanations for your question about heaven, although there is no real way to figure out which one if any is the case. The whole point of heaven is that it gatekeeps and separates the good from the bad, so it's not like a bad person will enter heaven and start doing evil things. But then what if a good person changes their mind? Well assuming such a person was allowed in the first place, maybe committing an evil act in heaven is just physically impossible (how would you be evil in heaven?) or maybe if you try and do something evil, you are kicked out. My point isn't that these are definitely the case, my point is that the possibilities are a lot more complex than just assuming heaven takes away your free will, which doesn't align with what we know God to favor.
I agree with your definition of free will. It could be possible that God created a world were doing evil acts is impossible but then there wouldn't be a choice for humans to be evil. God doesn't want people to be evil, but he finds value in people's ability to be evil. If he wanted to, he could maybe just make everyone completely good, and everyone would go to heaven- but then what's the point? It's like cheating in a game. And I understand what you're saying- what if God allowed people to be evil but did not allow them to do evil things. Again, I would wonder if there is a point, how would that even be possible, and would such a world prevent good people from being tested/going through hardships? If we want to argue about the validity of God and his world, that's fair, but if we're arguing about the lore as if it's all true- then we kind of have to arrive at the conclusion; we may or may not understand why, but God has a good reason for designing things the way he does.
@@xx_amongus_xx6987 OK, so if praying and asking god to do something won't affect your free will, then why won't he alleviate all the unnecessary pain and suffering in this world? any other answer like the tragically pathetic "god works in mysterious ways" will have missed the point of the free-will defense and will lead us back again to the original problem; again to remind you, the answer to this question was indeed because if he intervened then we won't have free will. Sure, let's assume that Moses did it out of his own "free will" even though a case could be made for coercive action, the question still remains, if god would miraculously save people from evil acts, be it natural or human, and if it is as you claim, won't affect our free-will, then why wouldn't he? And I particularly like how you ignored the other 2 cases, because indeed you cannot reconcile them with free will defense; how could you? he destroyed 2 towns in the most horrific way because they "disobeyed" him, yet we live in a time where billions of people disobey him all the time and nothing happens. I would love to see your mental gymnastics on how you'd go about reconciling the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah and free will.
But we do know that no evil act would be committed in heaven; you're physically incapable of doing so, as in you won't even think of doing any evil act. So when you say that you'd get kicked from heaven for committing an evil act, you're contradicting the bible. Unless of course you pick and choose which verses to be interpreted literally and which metaphorically; a game mainly played by Christians and Muslims alike to save their fragile religion from any scrutiny. But let's assume that there is a scenario where you'd get kicked if you commit an evil act, could we really say that that place is best than say earth or even hell? at least in the last two places I could do whatever I want i.e I have more free will in those places since I can do evil, but I cannot in heaven. Again those responses are not adequate to reconcile free will defense with heaven and to simply assert that there is a very complex possibility that we may or may not know is, frankly speaking a pathetic cop out.
If you agree with my definition then you won't have any issues with imagining a world where the only options available to us are good ones. There is nothing wrong with humans not having the choice to do or be evil, you do not have the choice of growing wings, is that bad? you're only perceiving it as bad because you're analyzing it from your current position. If there was a group of humans who could grow wings and fly, to them, if they didn't have that choice, then it would be bad. The problem arises when you make the jump from "you can't do x" to "therefore, I have no free will". To go back to the winged human example, if they were told that they would lose their wings, they will then say that they won't have free will because they cannot grow wings, you're basically doing the same thing just because you cannot do x doesn't mean you won't have free will.
@@abdallam4039 Why won't God alleviate all the unnecessary pain and suffering in this world? Well the problem with that question is you're assuming that pain and suffering is unnecessary. We can both agree that pain and suffering isn't good, but is it unnecessary? Maybe, maybe not. Like I mentioned in my other comment, maybe pain and suffering is necessary for us to be judged. Maybe it is the point of our world existing.
Moses was coerced? I don't know what you're referring to here, but coercion doesn't eliminate the concept of free will. People coerce each other and it hasn't eliminated free will as far as anyone can tell. The point of this world isn't for God to swoop in and fix every problem and make it a perfect place. The perfect place is heaven, where God has enacted everything you've mentioned so far (there is no evil or pain there). Our world can be thought of as the messy doorstep to the real, perfect world.
I wasn't ignoring the other two cases on purpose; I thought my point was clear. God destroying something doesn't mean people lose free will. They only lose free will if God literally begins to control their actions and somehow forces them to do something they otherwise wouldn't do- which didn't happen. Explain to me how God killing people somehow saps them of free will. It eliminates their ability to exert free will (since they're dead), but he isn't controlling them. His reason for them destroying them isn't something I care to talk about, I'd rather stay on topic and not make my comment even longer than it already will be.
"But we do know that no evil act would be committed in heaven; you're physically incapable of doing so, as in you won't even think of doing any evil act." Where is your evidence that you wouldn't even think of doing any evil act? Hell as we know it doesn't exist btw, it's never mentioned in the bible.
No matter what type of abilities you will have, the concept of "good and evil" is not tied to anything inherent. So even if you eliminate everything good and evil, evil will still probably exist as a concept and it will be tied to the 'evil' stuff in that world, even if it isn't evil relative to our own world. Difference between growing wings and being evil is one is tied to the nature of our world. By what we know, for a world to exist without evil, is for that world to be illogical by our standards. Is another world possible where evil doesn't exist? Maybe, but also maybe not.
I always like Stephen Law's theory of an evil god.
I would love to hear more about his theory if you don't mind
@@mugsofmirth8101 Search for his appearance on the Philosophy Bites podcast.
But if Adam lived in a world with no evil, he wouldn't need to guard the money. The money would be safe. So he'd be 'free' to keep going and do whatever he wants. Apart from all the evil things of course.
The money can be lost even if no one steals it so guarding it is the only good option
So what about God's end game of Heaven?? If evil has to exist to have free will and free will with evil is better than slavery and nothing but good, then isn't Heaven a bad deal?? And if the essence that makes me, me is built on a foundation of evil, then if I suffer on earth with the goal of going to Heaven, then the "me" that exists on earth really dies and the "me" in heaven isn't really me when that evil is stripped away so I fit into God's perfect heaven. If that isn't me, then why would I work towards going to heaven??
If all of that isn't true, then why does earth exist?? God is apparently capable of making a perfect world without evil. It's called heaven, and he promised it to his followers. Why make the earth and allow evil if there is a better option?? Which there obviously is.
if it's logically impossible for man to avoid sinning, due to free will (somehow), then god is irrational to demand that man not sin, thus he doesn't exist.
KEvron
theres also this argument god cannot lie, if he cannot and its not an option is he god? does he have free will?
If Adam is guarding the money to wait for the rightful owner, how does he know when the rightful owner shows up instead of a lowdown dirty liar?
You are getting lost in the analogy
Great video. Like everybody says: it’s underrated. I think the toughest thing is defining evil and considering the butterfly effect of every individual choice. Let’s say Adam finds some money and then guards it for the actual owner, but then the owner uses it to buy a gun and go on a killing spree. Would it have been better for Adam to have stolen it? Did Adam commit an evil act by giving the owner his money?
It's an interesting consideration but I believe your argument falls flat when viewed in the larger scheme of things, for example how does this person wish to buy a gun and go on a killing spree? If they existed in the same world as Adam and were created the same they (the murderer) would not wish to do such a thing.
@@archiealderdice1852Then let’s say it’s the exact same thing, but with Susie doing it out of her free will goodness.
@@JuanMPalacio I'm not sure if I follow your point but what I'm getting at is that I don't believe we would need to concern ourselves with right or wrong if given a "God given" objective morality that we all naturally follow. I think that if we were given that kind of perfect essence in which we act in a way God wishes (in a way that is good) then there would be no butterfly effects. This is of course provided that everyone is made that way.
Shouldn't this only be with regards to the idea of how God is in Christianity..rather than just all theists
What about Heaven do our theist friends lose free will when they go there? Supposedly they will not be bothered by the people they love burning in hell.
I think free will in response to the problem of evil is a theological passing of the problem to humanity and not accounting for the attributes that an Intrinsic Being is given as a necessity. If we have a divine Being that is all knowing, all powerful, and all good, where does evil come from? Anything that is good would not intentionally create evil. To try and dodge the problem of evil by answering with free will is disingenuous. This god that humanity created must be held accountable for the problem of evil.
But is God morally obligated to transcend His intrinsic attributes to humanity as a necessity? The only objection I’ve heard from scripture is ( Isaiah 45:7) insinuating God creates evil . But the majority consensus of Bible scholars translate the Hebrew (ra) to calamity which st Thomas aquinas states in his summa theolgia that evil is simply a privation of good or privation from original form of creation . Evil is simply a by product of Gods goodness
Libertarian free will isn't even s coherent concept, so... Also, if some people are created by God essentially evil, then they have no choice to be good. It seems only people born essentially amoral or morally neutral could have freedom to choose between good and evil deeds. Finally, this would at best explain human evil, but there is also natural evil. All in all I believe this defense fails on multiple counts.
Let me tell you something, being on this Earth is like a test with God being the examiner. The evil one will go to eternal damnation while the righteous to eternal life. Even in life, we have tests. So, don't the tests serve as a necessary evil?
Why would an all knowing entity need to test anything? What’s the point of a test that you already know the results of?
We're not in heaven. The argument pushed by this video is that we should live in a perfect world or God doesn't exist. That completely ignores the idea an afterlife.
🤔
The problem with this entire argument is that, according to the Bible, evil and suffering are only temporary. This world doesn't continue on like it currently is eternally. God allowed evil and suffering as a temporary means of showing us that we need him. Those who believe that ultimately end up in a world eternally free of evil and suffering. In punishing evil, God is glorified for his justice. In saving sinners, God is glorified for his mercy. In all ways, God gets the glory.
Do problem of evil arguments depend on the assumption that evil and suffering are permanent?
@@chad969 well, the argument is basically, if there is a god, and he's good, why is there evil? And I think, underlying that, is the idea that evil and suffering are permanent. But if they are temporary tools being used by God to bring about a good end, then that really changes things, IMO.
@@BatMite19 You can't actually prove a greater good comes out of an evil, especially if I get really specific and were to ask you what the greater good that came out of the Boxer Tsunami was, leukemia, etc. It's just an assumption and wishful thinking. Plus, if God needs evil to bring about good, then he is not all-powerful.
That seems to be narcissism.
A perfectly benevolent and omnipotent being doesn't need to be glorified or make others dependent.
And it's immoral, abusive, and narcissistic to allow suffering to show the victims they need someone.
8:56 That is an interesting take. Horrendous acts of evil do seem to give life meaning, regardless of our own inclinations. Even from a writing standpoint, it is difficult to write interesting heroes without equally interesting villains and/or difficulties. Without the latter, you're just left with an empty, shallow story that serves as nothing more than wish-fulfillment.
And what is wrong with empty shallow stories? Nothing, only our feeling of boredom from it and that feeling didnt have to be created.
@@eklektikTubb Well, it's certainly one way to spend time, just not one I'm a fan of. You do you though, only you know what's best for you.
@@eklektikTubb Empty shallow stories have no point.
@@xx_amongus_xx6987 , @Elkington I was talking about MEANING OF LIFE here. Evil, pain, suffering, plot twists and point are not necessary for meaning of life, WE are the ones who gives our lives meaning, each of us can decide what is meaningful and what isnt.
@@eklektikTubb I don't think you @'ing the other person worked.
I understand that, my statement was a sort of metaphor to say that the universe has little purpose if everything is perfect. Someone could still maybe inject some purpose into their life, but such a purpose would be self-imposed, and it would probably be weak. And while I think God would theoretically want us to find purpose in our lives, I think there is further reason for our existence which is to do actions and build our character. From what we know, God doesn't care so much about our specific purpose in life as much as he cares if we are good people or not despite what challenges/experiences we may have.
*Is there "freewill in heaven" ?* (Yes)
*Is there "Evil & suffering in heaven" ?* (No)
Why not only create the humans, _that through their own "freewill", will choose to follow God ?_
But there CAN be evil & suffering in heaven. God kicks you out if you are evil. Isn't that why Satan and the demons are in hell instead of heaven?
@@AndyAlegria
Thanks for your _"personal opinion",_ but I see no point in wasting time on your obscure, *(make up what you want),* non Biblical views of heaven.
@@moodyrick8503 Non-biblical? It's canon. Revelation 12:9, among others.
@@AndyAlegria *It's just your/another interpretation of Revelation*
_Step outside of your bubble ;_
Thousands of denominations hundreds of contradictory interpretations about all kinds of very important stuff.
No single denomination/version can convince any other of it's _"true interpretation",_ because if they could, there would be only one Christian denomination. (fact)
*The Bible =* _Gods words & instructions ?_
As written, interpreted & spoken from the minds of men.
*Faith in the Bible =* _Faith in man._
@@moodyrick8503 I agree that there are a lot of Christian denominations, and many of them are due to different interpretations of the Bible, though my research determined that those differences are often small in the grand scheme of all Christian belief. One church split over nothing more than the holy ghost being subservient to the father and son as opposed to equal. The revolt of the angels, and God booting Satan from heaven, is a commonly known story from (interpretation of) the Bible. The other major interpretation I found is the booting of pagans from the Roman empire. These were the only two interpretations I could find. I had the impression from your post that you believe the angelic revolt is a fringe theory, and just one interpretation of many, but a survey of interpretations on the Internet easily demonstrates that it is the dominant story. In fact, how are you so sure there is free will in heaven (according to the Bible) if not for the angelic revolt?
There is no evil in heaven. Is there free will in heaven? If there is then god can create a world where there is free will and no evil. If there isn’t then why is there a need for free will on Earth? Only an immoral god would allow any suffering it has the capacity to prevent.
Even better. How about Pantheistic, Fatalistic Modal Realism. God is everything in all possible things, each possible thing is fated in its own multiversal branch. The multiverse has to exist so that the best possible world exists. But if the best possible world exists then so does the worst possible world and everything in between. God would have to be all loving, all knowing and all present for any of existance to happen. However this brings the question that given a worst possible world exists and a best possible world exists is it ethical for God to do this as despite all things being in balance the net result is equal, but there is actually evil that exists when if there was no life, no reality, no best, worst or any outcomes, then no evil could exist?
So the above would actually mean that there are also an infinite amount of best possible worlds because given that this is a decision tree there are branches where everyone makes the best possible decision and improves their world sequentially towards the best possible world available in that line. We also get branch collapses due to transposition as these universes would all junction together. This is something theorised with partical physics that multiversal lines merge back together. This can infer that although we can not conceive of the exact number and consider existance infinite there would actually be an upper bound due to transpositional limitation. But similar to how we struggle to quantify chess positions and games the universe is massively more complex than chess so we are unable to grasp at the magnitude of the quantities involved.
Just dont give us free will if you dont want us making whatever the fuck we want
Good and evil exists in humanity...not God... God didn't make people... people made God's
1. Free Will + Suffering vs Determinism + no suffering
The outcome overall is better when people can choose to do evil, because those who believe in God will go to heaven and enjoy a relationship with Him forever, while the people who choose not to will suffer for a little while, and then burn in hell, and then they will all eventually be destroyed. So the outcome on a cosmic, infinite scale is that for a short time humans suffer, and for eternity a large group of humans get to enjoy the presence of God forever which they freely chose to engage in. Also, God did not want to create beings which were not capable of loving Him or having a relationship with Him, so this option isn't even relevant.
2. Theological Determinism
Foreknowledge does not equal determinism. This is a complete contradiction. Simple as that.
3. Natural Evil
God created everything and it was good. The fall of man not only caused humans to become fallen, but creation to be fallen as well. They were not permitted to stay in a world that was perfect, so they left the Garden of Eden and entered into a fallen world. The natural disasters, and the disease, and all of the other things that happen to our kind are a result of our own selfish actions. This is possibly one of the most stupid objections you could come up with (right after the foreknowledge one, which is an obvious contradiction).
Just because there are more options on the table to choose from does not make one more free (and who ever said being more “free” is good anyway). If I, at the outset want to choose that I cannot choose or desire evil, then I am not granted my will or desire am I. Free will has always been an impossibility, and there never was anything good about it either.
Free will means free to make our decisions
The closing argument against free will falls short. When Adam and Eve sinned, creation suffered. As a consequence of sin, natural disasters became a reality, as did sickness and death.
Also, just because ppl would be willing to give up their freedom to become automatons, only able to choose good, God being much wiser and seeing completely the big picture, thought it so important for us to have free will, that He doesn’t violate it. He invites us to choose Him, He doesn’t force us to do so, or leave us no other choice. Instead, God entered our suffering through Christ and also suffered with us. He redeemed suffering as well as those who believe in Him, and His resurrection took away the final consequence of our sin, eternal separation from Him.
Argument 3 is catastrophic. If God is good, according to your argument, and eternal, since he existed at a time before any other moral agents, nothing He did could be called "good," because no other possibilities could obtain. Yet, the Bible claims creation was good. What does this tell us? A: other moral agents did exist besides God, b: God is not all good. It must have been possible for other possibilities to obtain other than those that are good, or c: having evil options available but not choosing them does not diminish the value of the good choices, as you claim, and your premise is false.
In Christianity, God is exists before any other moral agents and defined goodness. Doing good is doing what God wants, because God knows what is best (since He’s all-knowing and all-loving). Creation was good because God did it. God knew that we could live our best existence with free will. He does set rules and teach people how to be good throughout the Bible with the commandments (not to murder, not to lie, not to steal etc) and with His teachings (to love our neighbours).
Plato questions whether things are good simply because the Greek gods says so with the Euthyphro dialogue. Adjusted to the Abrahamic God, I think that the answer to that is YES, since God is all-knowing and all-loving the His decision to give us free will and give us rules are what is best.
@@JuanMPalacio how is him being all knowing going to help him decide what's good? Given that there is no morality that transcends God he just has to decide what's good or evil at random. He can't have a basis for his decisions as there is nothing else before God
@@JuanMPalacio The argument was put forward in the video that one cannot be good if there is no capacity to ever do bad. If god was the first agent that existed and only had the capacity to do good and not bad, then goodness didn't exist and god cannot be said to be good at all. It would be meaningless. Therefore, the first creative acts being referred to by God as good have no referent for "good." It's an inconsistency that emerges from the attempt to defend why having agents only able to do good wouldn't be possible, and must be extended in all cases, or it's special pleading.
@@pianovirtuoso420What's Evil is the absence of Gof:/
@@RustyWalkerThe Good comes from the all Loving nature of God,the thing of being all good not being possible if God cannot do something bad is you giving God a Given Human Trait,The possibility to do Good or Evil,God only Does what is Good,you may ask .does he have a choice to do what is Evil,Yes,The concept of Free will given to Humans Comes from Him as he is the Source of All information.
The Concept of Evil is God knowing what isn't him and it coming to existence
We are able to tell of Darkness existing due to the absence of light
Darkness existing on its own but is dependent on the concept of Light,therefore light had to exist for Darkness to become a concept.
Evil and Darkness in terms are similar.
If Knowing a All Loving God always exists then the concept of That We cannot tell something Good apart from something Bad is null.
Maybe...now hear me out...maybe there are no "good" actions in the world...apart from life in Christ of course...?
ok, so God won't create people like adam, so what?
i think most people would prefer to live in world where hitler and stalin together with their atrocities didn't exist.
This is flawed in many ways. God is our Father, and a good father disciplines. It does not make him evil or hateful for a father to take away from a child, or strike a child for his own well-being. That’s is why Allah of Islam for example is a false god and satanic in nature, because he predetermines for people to sin.
Is child cancer is God’s way of disciplining children?
Free will makes no logical sense to me, so I’m going to say no.
Come on, the vid was real god up until the transworld stuff, it's really weak.
Free will defence donot explain natural evil.
I think of it this way, we were created to be tested, we are evil by nature but it doesn’t justify acting up on it, we will be tested on the day of judgement on how well we controlled our evil nature and that’s why evil exists in this world, god didn’t creat a perfect world on purpose to see how well we’ll do in it
In that case he is not omniscient, because he doesn't know a future of our decision.
@@vaclavhusak4763 why wouldn’t he?
@@Ihaaabif god's omniscient then it already knows how something or someone he created will act without having to test it. Therefore, either god had to test its creation because it isn't omniscient or the purpose of this life is not a test but something else.
If we now add omnipotence to the equation, then anything that could be achieved by making people experience suffering could also have been directly created or given by such god without resorting to suffering at all.
The only logical conclusion is that if an all-powerful all-knowing god indeed existed, nothing is a means but an end on its own, making such god a sadist as it chose to expose its creation to suffering that neither gives him any new knowledge, nor is necessary for any other outcome.
@@eprd313 just so that we are clear, you think you can comprehend the ways of an omnipotent and all powerful god with your human mind? Clearly you overestimate yourself, let's forget about religion and everything, do you think that if a god who created the universe and life, and understands everything within it existed, would you be able to comprehend how he thinks? Forget about ants you're like a bacteria trying to understand how a human thinks, and it's not even comparable
@@Ihaaab I think I can understand logic. It's you who's claiming to know some god's mind without understanding nor caring about the logical fallacies behind your assertions. Yours is the typical response of a theist who saw they can't use sound reasoning for their arguments anymore: "god acts in mysterious ways. Trust me bro". Let's play a game: imagine we were intelligent enough to understood what words meant, and then try to reason your way out like a mature, intelligent adult instead of resorting to ad hominems like "you overestimate yourself". I don't want to underestimate you, so I'll give you another chance to counterargue adequately.
God is not an object of worship. We are self , not the body, though identical with the nature of God differs in degree Ike waves and the ocean. Then how it happens some become evil in nature. Self has the tendency to take the Colour of that with which it identified with. Just like covered by the clouds of evil. This clouds can be cleared by our freewill God gave this gift to make us responsible for our actions.
“Good actions cease being good.” Ok, then heaven doesn’t have good because every action is a part of the ubiquitous norm.
There is no evil. There is something you don’t like. God does not have to be good.
@The Steezy Wizard love is something you like
So, Holocaust is not evil and just a thing I don't like?
Somehow I think you might not be using the same definition of "evil." In the free will defence, "Evil" is more akin to "that which begets avoidable suffering in sentient life."
@@luckysks7310 not every holocaust is called evil. Some are even in bible and “allowed by god”
@@RustyWalker suffering is about nervous system. Don’t want to suffer - don’t live, Use pills etc. kill your nervous system and you don’t suffer anymore. Like primitive one cell organisms.
What an incredibly biased take in a piss for showing of the free will defense. You don't have to accept that, but you should at least attack the most robust version of the argument rather than this petty straw, man
But wouldnt acts like murder or theft also impose a restriction on the victims of said acts free will? If the goal is complete unadulterated free will then thats a problem, as most victims to evil such as theft or murder wouldnt not willingly consent to have their free will violated in such a way. So free will for those who commit evil acts but no free will granted for the victims who wish to not be victims of such crimes
You are assuming that self defense is considered evil. There are plenty of Christians who interpret from God's law that saving yourself or family from murder is not evil. Your interpretation above is just one possibility. The video argued that removing evil from mankind would not be removing their ability to perform evil, only their desire. I have no desire to eat dirt, but I can if I choose. If someone chooses to do evil even though they do not desire it, someone else can choose to defend themselves, even if they do not desire it. The situation where one person can choose to attack but another cannot choose to defend is not a situation that would result from the arguments of the video.