-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Yet Another Thread on Freewill
- Thread starter Nakosis
- Start date
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Religous critics benefit by undermining theodicy. It's all about trying to portray an evil immoral god. This is rewarding for them because it justifies their criticism. A critic desires finding flaws. They recieve pleasure from it. An evil immoral god is a huge flaw. Revealing it renders tremendous pleasure to the critic.
Orbit
I'm a planet
I don't see how what you said relates to the question of free will.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Claim: God is immoral, incompetent, or negligent because pain, suffering, and hardship exist
Counter-claim: pain, suffering, and hardship exist as a consequence of free-will
If free-will is rejected, the counter claim fails.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, but I don't need free will for the line of thinking in regards to the theodicy problem.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
By noting it's a crazy made up term by religious, illustrates it's a benefit for rejecting freewill.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, that is in effect a free floating claim and contains what could be consider an emotional claim.
That is so because crazy to signal in the end an emotion in you and the sentence contains no supporting reasoning. It is just a naked claim.
The belief in libertarian free will is the problem. As defined as unimpeded free will is what is not remotely possible. I believe there is the possiblity of a limited potential free will and rejecting libertarian free will can give us some insight into the possibility of limited free will choices and decisions,
Soandso
ᛋᛏᚨᚾᛞ ᛋᚢᚱᛖ
Hmmm... I guess my problem with this would be the idea that free will exists in heaven when pain and suffering doesnt exist there as well
The opposite of determinism in this case.
It seems to me to be a lot of need to counter what you don't believe anyway.
Hmm... A thought popped into my head. I remembered a quote I had heard from a Determinist, "Even though determinism is true we have to behave as if freewill were a fact". So it seems to me that even if you believe in determinism you can't act as if it were true.
The definition that I come across is libertarian free will holds that people are individually independent to make decisions autonomously—not controlled by any outside force our someone else but rather fully self-governed.
Do you think this is ever true? That we can be self governed, acting independent of other people or external forces?
I believe this is rather distorted perspective of relationship of human will and determinism. I believe determinism is true, but not a mechanical robotic determinism. Determinism in reality is that the chain of cause and effect events and decisions is within the limits of Natural Laws. I do not believe that believing in either 'free will' or no free will makes any difference concerning our choices. Out choices are influenced by so many factors that the limited potential free will we may have is in our decision making process regardless.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
True. For those that claim/believe this, they are probably fine without free-will in heaven. They are submitting to the divine will.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Other than inellectual / philosophical gratification, I can't see any other reason to try to poke holes in free-will. But for a religious critic, it seems obvious. It's usually ( always? ) the atheists that are claiming no free-will. And since we're on RF, that's what we're exposd to. So it seems like an easy observation. The critic gets pleasure from knocking down a religious claim.
I suppose, some people might use it to claim that criminals aren't choosing the crimes they commit. Which leads to excusing people like Hitler, and all these folks >>> List of serial killers by number of victims - Wikipedia. But it could be used to argue.. say... against the death penalty. Or argue in favor of gentle friendly prisons, or some other nonsense.
What benefits can you think of for rejecting free-will?