‘Free will’ is not an excuse for God allowing atrocities.

[Ehav4Ever]

When I ask believers why their god would allow a serial killer to abuse and murder a dozen innocent children over the course of his lifetime, I am often told that god is helpless to intervene because he gave us all ‘free will’ and that to intervene would be a violation of that ‘free will’. It sounds reasonable at first glance, but this argument doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.

I agree that if god were to snap his metaphorical fingers and magically take away the serial killer’s perverse desires or temporarily paralyze him any time he attempted to commit a wicked act that it would be a violation of free will. But why doesn’t god just snap his metaphorical fingers and give the guy a lethal heat attack? Obviously god deciding when a person’s life will come to an end isn’t a violation of their free will otherwise every single person who has ever died unwillingly has had their free will violated, which pretty much includes everyone except for people who commit suicide, sacrifice their lives for others, or are experiencing unendurable suffering.

So after this guy kills his first innocent child why doesn’t god decide to bring his life to an end? Even if god wanted to give the guy the chance to repent and seek forgiveness for his sins, why didn’t god give him a heart attack after the second innocent victim or the third? Why would a loving and caring god allow this maniac to kill a dozen little children and end up dying peacefully in his sleep in his late 80’s?

It obviously has nothing to do with god being helpless to intervene because of the killer’s free will.

I can't answer from the western perspective of a "god" because in terms of your question you would first have to determine what a god is and what a god isn't in order to then deal with what a god is willing to do and what a god is not willing to do; as well as the reasons. Further, you would need to know on what basis such a being, if there is/was one, established reality with.

So, from a Jewish perspective as to the heart of your questions, which appears to be the following.

1. Why would a serial killer be allowed to abuse and murder a dozen innocent children over the course of his lifetime?
   
2. Is what ever created everything helpless to intervene because of the human free will?
   
3. Why doesn't what ever created everything respond and react at certain times to what human perceive as human suffering?

Continuing with the Jewish perspective, there is a concept that when Creator of all things created humanity a "type of free will" was put into place. This consists of:

1. The average human, non-Jewish, has 7 mitzvoth/commands/rules with which to base human life and society on.
   • Two of which relate to your base questions are that a) murder is forbidden and b) that human societies must establish systems of justice and enforce them as well as strictly abide by them. Each of these two can be broken up into volumes of sub-categories.
   • For Jews, as a nation it is 613.
2. As a part of the "type of free will" there are two "basic" sides people. One called the Yetzer HaTov and the Yetzer HaRa.
   • Both sides are important. Both sides have a purpose.
   • These two sides are part of how humans can choose to either receive the good of the reality we are created in or reject it/distance themselves from it; also included is the ability make to make a mess of things.
   • Both are fully in a person's ability to cotrol and both have a use that can work out for the benefit of the individual and for society.
3. All choices have consquences.
   • The personal choice to disregard the 7 mitzvoth come along with personal and societal consquences.
   • The societal choice to disregard the 7 mitzvoth come along with personal and societal consquences.
     
   • By like token the choice hold by them and establish them have personal and collective consquences.
   • Again, for the Jewish nation there are 613.
4. Every person has a type of account that comes along with their actions and the actions of the soceity around them.
   • The action or inaction of the individual and society can tip things in one direction or another.
   • Actions taken or not taken have an affect on this account.
   • Further, there are no such things as small actions that effect nothing. All action or inaction leads somewhere.
   • As humans we don't have the ability to see this account, at least not fully. (I.e. see the following video about what I mean on perspective The fundamentals of space-time: Part 2 - Andrew Pontzen and Tom Whyntie)
5. There is this world and there is a world to come.
   • Using a military metapor, this world is like "boot-camp" and anyone who has done military service knows that boot-camp has many challenges associeted with it that a perspective soldier is expected to overcome personally and as a part of a group.
   • In a good/just military training system the challenges are never impossibe to overcome and the goal of them being there is to get the perspective soldier in the right mindset and physical state to be a proper soldier.
     
   • The world to come is like the accomplishment of surviving and overcoming boot camp. Some people reach the goal, some people quit, and some people make a mess of the whole experience.
6. Death and suffering in this world is not the end. Depending on the type of life a person lived there can be a reward when a person has suffered and when they have overcome adversity.
   • A person can live a life where they receive all the benefits of the good they do only this world.
   • A person can live a life where they will only receive the benefits of the good they do only the world to come.
   • There are some people who are able to receive the good in both.
   • There are some people who live their lives where they will receive all of the results of the bad they do in this world and in the world to come.
   • Receiving the bad in the world to come is often translated into not have a place in the world to come.
   • There is no eternal place of punishment in the world to come.
7. The Creator of all things has the ability to, if you will, "see the bigger picture w/o human eyes." I.e. the Creator of all things is not a human, has no human emotions, and is able to grasp the real bigger picture on a univeral/beyond universal level, so to speak.
   • Combined with that the Creator of all things established the universe in the way it is for the benefit of humanity.
   • Humanity can choose to use that gift correctly or not.
   • The Creator also established ways for those who choose to receive the good and use this gift properly to survive and overcome all challenges, either in this world or in the world to come.
   • The Creator's seeing the bigger picture also includes knowing when to intervene, how to intervene, when to prevent certain types of people from being turning away from evil, knowing when to strengthen those who are doing the right things, knowing when to allow a life to begin, knowing when to allow a life to end, knowing how to allow a life to begin, knowing how to allow a life to end, and knowing the conquences of how humans respond to the reality we are born into and will one day pass away from.
   • Given that we humans have no say in our birth, it would stand to reason that we also only have a certain say in our deaths. For example, all humans are created with an end date, so to speak, we cannot extend that beyond what we were created for. YET, we can lesson it and we can make it a long hard journey by our choices and the choices of the society around us. We can also make it the most joyful life every based again on our choices and the choices in society around us.
   • By like token, given that we ourselves didn't establish any of the universal or phsyical laws of the universe that allows life to be sustained we at some point have to adjust to the fact that there are things that are not in our control and we, while alive in a human body, don't have the ability see all the angles. Yet, we have every right to research, question, challenge, and come to conclusions.
8. Lastly, we humans have the world the way we want it, at any given time.
   • We have been given the power to choose between making things perfect w/o suffering or to make a world that is full of it.
   • This is the way most humans want it and that is the way the Creator has structured it; that is until humans choose to reject the mindsets and actions that individually cause suffering and collectively cause suffering.

So, from a Jewish perspective you are right. It isn't free will alone and it isn't that the Source of Creation can't intervene. Thus, from the Jewish perspective we study our historical texts with the above perspectives in mind - and further that the Torah was given not as a history book but an instructional for dealing with the reality that we are born into.

 

[epronovost]

God is by nature all-good and as such God cannot be immoral.

God does not have to follow rules because God is not 'answerable' to anyone.
God does whatever He chooses to do and if you don't like it there is nothing you can do about it since you are not all-powerful.

Then you have created a logical contradiction; you cannot be unanswerable to any rules and be all-good. To be all-good, you have to answer positively and constantly to a set of rules. That's what good means in the first place. You can't be above the rules and bound by no rules and be good.

According to your own beliefs, nobody is answerable to any rules because everybody has free will. Nobody can be forced to do anything at any point. At best, they can caught and stopped in the act by someone with the will to protect others and defend justice and fairness or punished after the fact. If we are talking about moral responsibility, then all moral agents have one and have to answer to other moral agent's judgement and to their own conscience. Can they be stopped or punished; that's an entirely other thing, but they can be judged and censured.

Who determines what is good?
You think that X is good but you are just a fallible human. Another human thinks Y is good and another human thinks Z is good.

We can use the rules that your God set in place to judge him. I'm not judging him by my rules; I'm judging your god by his rules. Your god said that killing and harming humans was bad. If humans are killed and harmed which happens all the time then god is responsible for that.

When did God ever harm humans?

All the time. Every time a human gets hurt, no matter the cause and the reason, God could have prevented it, but he did not. He is all powerful. If you make things that aren't all powerful and place them in a setting where they can be hurt and are hurt, you are harming those things in those instances. Hell, God doesn't even intervene to prevent humans hurting other humans by accident or while trying to help, which wouldn't even break the "free will" argument.

God helps humans in the way He chooses to help them, by sending Messengers who reveal teachings and laws so humans can help themselves. God is not Superman who comes to rescue humans in distress, that is anthropomorphism.

Except laws, messengers and teachings be it writings or orally transmitted are also human things; these are anthropomorphic traits.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's like if you created a zoo, and some animals were in good shape and lived ok in the environments you designed and set up. But there are some animals who lack adequate food. Some lack adequate water. You created their living conditions in a way that diseases are rampant and some animals suffer. You knew this would happen since you are perfect in your designs, so what we see is what you wanted. You are not indifferent to the suffering but you do nothing to fix the problems. You have the power to fix the problems and create a more quality life for all animals, but you don't.

God created humans and gave them dominion over the earth so humans are fully responsible for taking care of this planet and all the animals and other humans on it. Humans have the ability to fix the problems and create a more quality life for all animals and some humans are doing just that. They don't sit around on forums blaming God.

Just because God has the power to fix all the problems that does not mean God is responsible to do so. This is what atheists totally miss.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then you have created a logical contradiction; you cannot be unanswerable to any rules and be all-good. To be all-good, you have to answer positively and constantly to a set of rules.

Humans have to follow the Laws of God to be good.
God is not subject to His own Laws. God is all-good because that is God's nature.

We can use the rules that your God set in place to judge him. I'm not judging him by my rules; I'm judging your god by his rules. Your god said that killing and harming humans was bad. If humans are killed and harmed which happens all the time then god is responsible for that.

God did not kill or harm any humans so God is not responsible for that.
Humans are responsible for killing and harming other humans.

All the time. Every time a human gets hurt, no matter the cause and the reason, God could have prevented it, but he did not. He is all powerful.

Every time a human gets hurt, no matter the cause and the reason, that human could have prevented it by choosing not to do it, but he did not.

Every human is fully responsible for his actions unless he is mentally ill, mentally challenged or brain damaged. Every court of law knows that

God never goes on trial because everyone except atheists knows that God bears no responsibility for human behavior.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I agree that if --- were to snap his metaphorical fingers and magically take away the serial killer’s perverse desires or temporarily paralyze him any time he attempted to commit a wicked act that it would be a violation of free will.

According to the Jewish concept on this. There are situations where this does happen. Because humans don't have the eyes to see how all of reality works and is interconnected we don't always know when someone's death is the result of things we don't see.

The problem you get into, w/o the bigger picture view is, "How far should this be taken?" For example, a group of school yard bullies verbally haress a kid on the school yard causing him to cry for an entire year. What should happen to them? Maybe would depend on some things that we can't see. For example, let's look at a few possibilities.

1. The bullied kid is able to overcome their verbal abuse and he becomes an inspiration for other bullied kids. He never knows that that he inspired someone.
   • In this scenario how should the bullies be punished?
   • Should the punishment of the bullies affect them in a way that also affects their parents and grandparents?
2. The bullied kid gets past the bullying but then himself becomes a bully to another kid who is weaker than him.
   • In this scenario should the bullies be punished?
   • Should the kid who was bullied who became a bully be punished?
   • What punishment is appropriate for each?
3. After being bullied for half a year the bullied kid gets fed up and attacks the bullies injuring them to the point where they are hospitalized.
   • Who should be be punished and how?
4. The bullied kid grows up and becomes stronger due to surviving the bullying. The bullies grow up and have normal lives and start families.
   • Should the bullies be punished before or after they have families and how?
5. The bullied kid can't take the verbal abuse and unfornately ends his life.
   • Should the bullies be punished and how?
   • If, seeing the big picture, it is known that if the bullied kid had lived he would have given birth to a son who would have saved 1,000 lives what should be the punishement now?
   • If, in seeing the big picture, it is known that if the bullied kid had lived he would have had a daughter that would have destroyed 1,000 lives what is the punishment now?

But why doesn’t god just snap his metaphorical fingers and give the guy a lethal heat attack?

Don't you need to know more inforamation before a "lethal heart attack" is the method? Don't you need to know what are all of the effects as a whole to determine if that is the right method or even when to make something like that happen? For example, what if you given him that punishment before he bears a child that may be destined to choose to save 1,000 lives? Also, you have to consider that this punishment may be needed for a whole swath of people who themselves may feel like they don't deserve that as a punishment.

Further, why can't human beings create societies where such a person can't even get to the point of performing such a crime?

So after this guy kills his first innocent child why doesn’t god decide to bring his life to an end?

Again, you would need more details about what it means to bring any individual's life to an end at any given time. W/o the big picture you may think you are doing something when in reality you could be missing some key peices that would determine when something should be done or when something should be allowed to happen. Further, there is also the human factor. There are unfortunately some situations where children suffer because of the choices of their parents. Should certain be stopped from having children? It gets very complex and univesal.

 

[loverofhumanity]

How can you think religion (your religion, yes?) is the answer when it doesn't have a viable approach, and isn't working?


So God shouldn't have created a universe that included people, and those people would invent religions, and then later it would take raw materials and the laws of physics to develop technology, that then caused division.

Why didn't God just send a single, clear revelation instead of letting things get out of control?

Seems like God is the problem because it underestimates humans. God should have created the universe in a way that would help humans unite as they evolved.


It's a faulty patch, just as flooding the planet was faulty. Just as Jesus' death hasn't solved the world's problems. Perhaps religion causes more problems than it solves. Ever think of that?


You don't seem aware of how many nationalists around the planet fear globalism, and are actually getting more extreme due to globalism. They fear the death of their nations, their religions, and their identities. Your words here feeds the division because you are feeding their fears. You expect them to be rational?
Let's note you ignored the question I asked. Would you give up your religion for world peace?

Your question is not valid because if religion holds the key to world peace, which I believe it does, then to give it up would be to throw world peace away as well.

The reason God didn’t send just one revelation is because we are ever progressing like in a school. We have to learn our abc before we can go to University so humanity couldn’t just instantly evolve overnight as we require generations to learn and evolve.

It’s only natural that when humanity is faced with change it expresses fear of the unknown. At one time nationalism was not the norm and people were concerned but eventually adapted to it and now it’s the new normal.

God does not force us to be peaceful or loving. He gives us the choice to choose our own path. You choose against because God doesn’t force you to be what you don’t want to be and that’s His way. He offers effective solutions for our problems but we are free to refuse.


Before the world wars and Holocaust not to mention ongoing civil wars and genocide Baha’u’llah offered a solid solution that would have seen peace and will when it is adopted. But again, until we are serious about wanting peace conflict and wars will continue.

 

[Nimos]

I didnt address your OP.

Anyway, you dont believe in God. And you are addressing Gods nature, and some kind of knowledge God has, which is one single aspect of God. Try and address all.

Sorry, don't know what you mean, I didn't write the OP I just replied to it or did you mean something else?

 

[Colt]

When I ask believers why their god would allow a serial killer to abuse and murder a dozen innocent children over the course of his lifetime, I am often told that god is helpless to intervene because he gave us all ‘free will’ and that to intervene would be a violation of that ‘free will’. It sounds reasonable at first glance, but this argument doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.

I agree that if god were to snap his metaphorical fingers and magically take away the serial killer’s perverse desires or temporarily paralyze him any time he attempted to commit a wicked act that it would be a violation of free will. But why doesn’t god just snap his metaphorical fingers and give the guy a lethal heat attack? Obviously god deciding when a person’s life will come to an end isn’t a violation of their free will otherwise every single person who has ever died unwillingly has had their free will violated, which pretty much includes everyone except for people who commit suicide, sacrifice their lives for others, or are experiencing unendurable suffering.

So after this guy kills his first innocent child why doesn’t god decide to bring his life to an end? Even if god wanted to give the guy the chance to repent and seek forgiveness for his sins, why didn’t god give him a heart attack after the second innocent victim or the third? Why would a loving and caring god allow this maniac to kill a dozen little children and end up dying peacefully in his sleep in his late 80’s?


It obviously has nothing to do with god being helpless to intervene because of the killer’s free will.

Because when God is reduced to a Santa Clause then there will be a long line of other people who want God to intervene in “free will” for a host of reasons. Everything from why did you let dear grandma die to winning the lottery, sprained ankles, didn’t get that job I prayed for to missed field goals with 1 second left on the clock.

And considering the fact that we keep letting violent criminals to return to society to reoffend again, God may ask us why we don’t use our free will to manage society better?

 

[firedragon]

Sorry, don't know what you mean, I didn't write the OP I just replied to it or did you mean something else?

Nevermind Nimos. Apologies.

 

[Nimos]

There are two scenario i can see here.

The 8ne who was murderd had done something wrong in the past them selves, and had to pay the price of dying to "repay their sin"

Or the person murdering had no morality left so evil deeds was the only way, and they will suffer after their death. (Gods plan to make the suffering come but later.

Human beings can not always see the reason for why something happen the way it does.

Could my answer here be wrong, and God does it totally different than I believe? Yes of course

That is an interesting answer, but can't help wondering if this doesn't cause you a lot of issues?

The reason being that, if what you say is true, it would be impossible or arguably morally wrong to punish any murderers for any crimes and basically we ought to have a system that favors those that commits murders rather than the victims.

If we use Breivik as example, we could argue that he did right because those people he killed had done something wrong in the eyes of God. And if God is what we should consider our moral judge, then Breivik did something good and we shouldn't punish him for it. Locking him up shouldn't be needed at all, because if he went out and killed some more, clearly those did wrong as well.

If we assume that the Breivik had no morality left so evil deeds were the only option, then God allowed innocent people to die because he wanted a reason or a way of punishing Breivik. Which again makes it so God doesn't really care about normal people, but that everything is focused around those that are murdering others and to feed God's ego. And if we don't want God to punish innocent, then we have to assume that they weren't and got what they deserved and therefore God is not going to punish Breivik later on, because he did exactly as God wanted him to.

 

[Nimos]

Nevermind Nimos. Apologies.

No problem

 

[Spirit of Light]

That is an interesting answer, but can't help wondering if this doesn't cause you a lot of issues?

The reason being that, if what you say is true, it would be impossible or arguably morally wrong to punish any murderers for any crimes and basically we ought to have a system that favors those that commits murders rather than the victims.

If we use Breivik as example, we could argue that he did right because those people he killed had done something wrong in the eyes of God. And if God is what we should consider our moral judge, then Breivik did something good and we shouldn't punish him for it. Locking him up shouldn't be needed at all, because if he went out and killed some more, clearly those did wrong as well.

If we assume that the Breivik had no morality left so evil deeds were the only option, then God allowed innocent people to die because he wanted a reason or a way of punishing Breivik. Which again makes it so God doesn't really care about normal people, but that everything is focused around those that are murdering others and to feed God's ego. And if we don't want God to punish innocent, then we have to assume that they weren't and got what they deserved and therefore God is not going to punish Breivik later on, because he did exactly as God wanted him to.

Well, I do not know the intent of action God may or may not do, God knows that.

The two examples are just that. Examples

 

[Jack11]

The USA and its enemies in all the wars that have happened claimed God was guiding them and leading them to victory so is God responsible for all the deaths in these wars? The American revolution the civil war you name it God was guiding them and bringing victory at least in their minds..Millions also died in the crusades to take the holy land all believing God was with them in war.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God is by nature all-good and as such God cannot be immoral.

[...]

God does not have to follow rules because God is not 'answerable' to anyone.
God does whatever He chooses to do and if you don't like it there is nothing you can do about it since you are not all-powerful.

What standard are you using to say that God is good? It seems like you're saying that God is exempt from any standard of goodness.

 

[Nimos]

Well, I do not know the intent of action God may or may not do, God knows that.

The two examples are just that. Examples

I know

But still it has to fit into your own reality of how you see things, how you see God etc. If you make examples which you don't believe yourself, then you obviously don't think God is of that nature, which means that you are not really arguing your believes, but rather no ones

Don't take it as a critique, because imagine I said that climate change is clearly made up and we probably don't have to care about it at all, and maybe Earth will just change orbit in the solar system depending on how hot or cold it gets. When someone question me about how Earth should be able to do this, I say, well it was just some examples, maybe it does or maybe it doesn't.

If I don't even believe that this is the case myself, then im not really making an argument as much as just throwing off random ideas, which has nothing to do with my believes. Said in another way, im not even remotely trying to make a qualified guess based on my believes or what fits into how I see reality of how things works.

Also for your own reflection of things, because your post basically say that any potential victim got what they deserved. Which is obviously uncalled for, unless you know these people and can make a moral judgement about them, but it could also be considered rather offensive to those close to the victims, especially when you follow it up with saying "I don't know, it was just examples" and finally because you don't seem to really believe that this is how things works either, so you also just slandered God as well, unless you are right and he is like that. But in that case, we should just tell him to go **** himself?

Anyway, hope you see that it weren't to have a go at you, but it could maybe explain, why you sometimes feel people lash out at you and why it is important to make a good argument that can be defended and which reflect one's view on reality, whether that then turns out to be right or wrong is another thing.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I know

But still it has to fit into your own reality of how you see things, how you see God etc. If you make examples which you don't believe yourself, then you obviously don't think God is of that nature, which means that you are not really arguing your believes, but rather no ones

Don't take it as a critique, because imagine I said that climate change is clearly made up and we probably don't have to care about it at all, and maybe Earth will just change orbit in the solar system depending on how hot or cold it gets. When someone question me about how Earth should be able to do this, I say, well it was just some examples, maybe it does or maybe it doesn't.

If I don't even believe that this is the case myself, then im not really making an argument as much as just throwing off random ideas, which has nothing to do with my believes. Said in another way, im not even remotely trying to make a qualified guess based on my believes or what fits into how I see reality of how things works.

Also for your own reflection of things, because your post basically say that any potential victim got what they deserved. Which is obviously uncalled for, unless you know these people and can make a moral judgement about them, but it could also be considered rather offensive to those close to the victims, especially when you follow it up with saying "I don't know, it was just examples" and finally because you don't seem to really believe that this is how things works either, so you also just slandered God as well, unless you are right and he is like that. But in that case, we should just tell him to go **** himself?

Anyway, hope you see that it weren't to have a go at you, but it could maybe explain, why you sometimes feel people lash out at you and why it is important to make a good argument that can be defended and which reflect one's view on reality, whether that then turns out to be right or wrong is another thing.

@Nimos i don't feel you attacking me at all my reply was only to say that it was an example and you already resonded to this in your own reply.

I believe no matter how I could explain Gods reason for or against human suffering there could be someone feeling I attacking them, but I dont have as you already know a reason for doing that.

So my answer to how my personal belief is.
I believe each human being has to answer for their own action words and thoughts. So for me to judge them would not be right to do.
But I can say, personal i see rape, voilence, killing and so on as a very bad action to do. And personally I would not do those things.

 

[pearl]

Its really quite simple, God allows what man allows as God is not a puppeteer pulling the strings.

 

[Nimos]

@Nimos i don't feel you attacking me at all my reply was only to say that it was an example and you already resonded to this in your own reply.

I believe no matter how I could explain Gods reason for or against human suffering there could be someone feeling I attacking them, but I dont have as you already know a reason for doing that.

So my answer to how my personal belief is.
I believe each human being has to answer for their own action words and thoughts. So for me to judge them would not be right to do.
But I can say, personal i see rape, voilence, killing and so on as a very bad action to do. And personally I would not do those things.

I understand that and don't worry, I do not see you as a person that would think these things were just fine

And I think all religious people deal with the issue of evil and God, it have been like that for 1000s of years as far as I know and no one have been able to give a good explanation for it. In most cases this is explained with human sin, however that doesn't really work with natural evil, which is probably the one causing the most issues.

But my comment were more in regards to a logical argument or deadlock, because as you have setup you example you paint God as an outright monster regardless of how one look at it. So even if it is just an example, I doubt that is how you intend to portrait the God you believe in? or at least you would surprise me a whole lot to be honest

The reason being, that there is no outcome in which God or human worth comes out on top. Either, killing people is justified and endorsed by God or God is allowing or directly killing innocent people to make a point. Either of these solutions, I think would make God a monster in the eyes of most people and therefore the question would be, that if God were of this nature, why would anyone of their right mind worship such being, whether he existed or not?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If no one had free will, would we all be like robots?

Why would preventing atrocities be incompatible with free will?

 

[We Never Know]

Why would preventing atrocities be incompatible with free will?

If John Doe chose to murder someone but a god stopped him, stopped his choice, isn't that control and not free will?

So I would think to stop atrocities would involve control.