god has no free will, therefore god is not moral.

[jcarl]

Interesting idea... let's analyze

* An omniscient being does not have free will

The term free will is a bit ambiguous. I assume you're talking about a libertarian freedom, which is defined as the will being the origin of movement, that is, the will lies internal to the agent. If this isn't what you're talking about, then clue me in.

If you are all-knowing, you know your future actions, what choices you will make, and you cannot change them otherwise your knowledge would be wrong, and you wouldn't be all-knowing. An omniscient being has no free will to choose actions; all it's actions are predetermined.

"There is a lightswitch on the wall; God may either turn it on, or leave it off; but, since God already knows the future, God knows that he will turn it on. That is part of his knowledge. But what if God exercises freewill, and chooses not to turn it on. Is this possible?"

If He chose not to, then He would have known about that change of his exercising of his free will. That still doesn't change that he would be choosing to flip the light on or off, i.e. the source of movement is in his will, returning to above definition.

As soon as an omniscient being comes into existence it already knows every action it will make. In effect God is an observer. An omniscient being has no free will - it's entire future is set out and it has no choice but to follow it's predestined path. God knows your prayers before you make them, it already knows what sacrifices are going to made to him and who is devoted enough to make them. and none of our actions will "change it's mind":

Perhaps not. If Molinism has any validity to it, then God's omniscience could be defined as knowing all possible outcomes. Then God would have knowledge of counterfactuals, which are the facts of how indeterminate entities would result from a given situation. http://blog.johndepoe.com/2004/11/human-freedom-divine-foreknowledge_08.html

* An all-good God has no free will

Out of the possible options in a situation God always makes the best choice because it is perfectly benevolent. It cannot do something that is less moral or "good" than something else, because that would not be perfectly good, but merely second-best good. So in every situation, God only has one choice: The most moral/good one. It is easy to see that God itself does not have free will. It can make no choices, every moment in time for an omniscient-benevolent God only allows one action. In order to give God it's free will, we would have to take away it's omniscience - it's all-knowing nature - or take away it's benevolence.

*

God exists outside of time... where there is no free will

That's not an undisputed claim. I can think of several philosophers off the top of my head (Plantinga, Craig, Flint, et al.) who would argue for God being in time.

*

Conclusion: God is not moral

enied free will, the following three contradict the existence of a being with Free Will:

An omniscient being cannot have free will
A perfectly benevolent God cannot have free will
The creator of time cannot have free will

What is the point of saying that God is moral, if God cannot choose to do anything bad? How can it be a moral being, if it has no choice? The answer is that God is not a moral being, it is a morally neutral being.

God's not choosing to do something morally wrong is not the same as you or me choosing to do it. For an omnibenevolent God to do something wrong would be a contradiction, like God making a married bachelor or 2+2=98. They're all nonentities, nonsense. They have no meaning, no substance.

Now, once again that God can only do the greatest good is not a limit on his free will, because free will is not just about having alternate possibilities, but having the will residing internally.

 

[audible]

Free will? Is free will a requirement to be good. Free will is the choice between good and evil. Now God cant choose evil because he doesnt have that power.

but he already has.

I am not saying God isnt omnipotent my definition isnt ALL POWERFUL it is ALL POWER YOU CAN HAVE now God can destroy evil but He cant do evil.

I repeat he already has.

Why? Because He is God. For God to be God He has to be Holy. So when I get the question Can God Sin? I make sure they know what they are asking. They are really asking can God not be God. NO HE CANT. Thats just non sense.

then you've been fooled.

Now what came first good or evil. The answer Good. Evil is just a spin off of GOOD. First my definition of Good is obeying God

by obey, you mean you must, else suffer his wrath?

and doing what is right (GOOD- morally perfect). Definition of evil or sin is Disobedience to God.

if your disobedient to god what does he do?

To have the ability to disobey you have to have the ability to obey.
Now that we have established good and evil and we understand that if God was evil then He wouldnt be God we can move on. Now Audible you have an understanding of good and evil already and I am not defining simple things to take away from your intelligence I am trying to be throrough. I am trying to establish why you would ever think of Free will or of good and evil and not just relate that to God. First lets go to your argument. The first point that God cant have free will because of omniscience and you are correct. Lets go back in the day shall we. Adam and Eve had a choice to obey or disobey God(Free will)

no A&E where coerced, they had no understanding of good or evil, they were likened to chimps, and therefore would not have understood before eating of the fruit, that they were doing any wrong, and why put the tree there in the first place if it was not what you wanted.

The insentive to obey God would be because we love him. Disobedience or evil is when we are selfish and want to do our on thing. Now that we have a choice between good and evil we also know we should do good. For instance we know it is wrong to murder someone right. Ok.

so does god, but still does it.

Now we dont know what we will choose but we always know that we can choose. God cant choose between good and evil because He is good.

is this the god of the bible, you refering too.

Now God knows what He will do thats understood but we know that what He does is Good. So God gave us free will, we chose to disobey now there are consequences from our disobedience (ex. Tsunami, death, disease ect..)

we made no such choice.

We have a knowledge between good and evil, we have the ability to choose or what we refer to as free will, and we know that God always does good so doesnt need free will. We know that Good came before evil and that evil is just the absence of good just like darkness is the absence of light.(light came before darkness)

you've got that back to front.

God isnt bound by time but that doesnt mean He cant interfere or doesnt have any power over it. The neccessity of time for action to take place is foolishness. The only neccessity is life and the ability to act. We are bound by time or we are confined inside of time because we are born and we die but see thats when God being eternal comes into play.
So just because God doesnt have free will doesnt mean that God isnt moral. He just only has one Choice

then it's not a choice

He can only do one thing, that is Good.
~His Son
Warrior61 ><>

then if he cant do evil as you say, but he seem to have done it countless times, then he would not understand evil, and evil would not exist, which make him worthless, because evil does, therefore he cant exist.
a morally neutral god cannot exist.

 

[audible]

The term free will is a bit ambiguous. I assume you're talking about a libertarian freedom, which is defined as the will being the origin of movement, that is, the will lies internal to the agent. If this isn't what you're talking about, then clue me in.

free will, dictionary definition.

If He chose not to, then He would have known about that change of his exercising of his free will. That still doesn't change that he would be choosing to flip the light on or off, i.e. the source of movement is in his will, returning to above definition.

God turned the light on. he also knows that he does not have the free will to go back and change that choice. It is impossible, even if he wants to, he can't. If you knew a choice you was going to make in the future... what would it mean? You would have no free will to change that choice. No option, no choices... based on the fact that you know it's going to happen, it is predestined and no amount of strong will can change it.
so God would not try to flip the light switch, it would be pointless.

God's not choosing to do something morally wrong is not the same as you or me choosing to do it. For an omnibenevolent God to do something wrong would be a contradiction, like God making a married bachelor or 2+2=98. They're all nonentities, nonsense. They have no meaning, no substance.

God cant choose anything, as it is morally neural, your answer just agrees with this..

Now, once again that God can only do the greatest good is not a limit on his free will, because free will is not just about having alternate possibilities, but having the will residing internally.

as I said to warrior61, and I repeat, then if he cant do evil as you say, but he seem to have done it countless times, then he would not understand evil, and evil would not exist, which make him worthless, because evil does, therefore he cant exist.
a morally neutral god cannot exist.

 

[Warrior61]

but he already has.

I assume you mean He already has done evil. Now my question is how.

I repeat he already has.

I repeat "how."

then you've been fooled.

I am guillible.Please help me see my error. JP but really how have I been fooled.

by obey, you mean you must, else suffer his wrath

I'm sorry. What?

if your disobedient to god what does he do?

Thats according. Be more specific please.

no A&E where coerced, they had no understanding of good or evil, they were likened to chimps, and therefore would not have understood before eating of the fruit, that they were doing any wrong, and why put the tree there in the first place if it was not what you wanted.

Negative. They knew they were not supposed to eat the fruit. They were told no(Gen. 2:15-17). The only thing that existed was good. They had knowledge of wrong and disobedience. Now also why would the man feel guilty if he didnt know. For instance it isnt right to punish a child when they do something wrong and they didnt know what they were doing was wrong.

so does god, but still does it.

You are going to have to back that up.

is this the god of the bible, you refering too.

Yes.

we made no such choice.

Oh well that just changes everything

you've got that back to front.

What?

then it's not a choice

Exactly. But for people who feel a need to have choices you can look at it that way.

then if he cant do evil as you say, but he seem to have done it countless times, then he would not understand evil, and evil would not exist, which make him worthless, because evil does, therefore he cant exist.
a morally neutral god cannot exist.

A morally nuetral god cannot exist that is true. You dont have to do evil to have knowledge of it. You have knowledge of girls but that doesnt mean you have to be one to know they exist.

 

[Lawdog]

God does not need to employ will. The will of God is already fixed on the Good. He does not need to make a choice, He is in ETERNITY.
Souls in Heaven do not have free will either, it would be a useless faculty there.

 

[§outh§tar]

Dear Lawdog

When you say the will of God is already fixed on the good, how did this come to be (if He has no free will)?

 

[audible]

Now God cant choose evil because he doesnt have that power.

but he already has.

I assume you mean He already has done evil. Now my question is how.

then I suggest you read your bible, there are over 800 evil deeds done by God, or on his behalf, you can get the bible quotes here

but He cant do evil.

I repeat he already has.

I repeat "how."

see above answer.

So when I get the question Can God Sin? I make sure they know what they are asking.

then you've been fooled.

I am guillible.Please help me see my error. JP but really how have I been fooled.

because God has sinned see above answer, he's evil personified.

First my definition of Good is obeying God

by obey, you mean you must, else suffer his wrath

I'm sorry. What?

my understanding of obey, mean there will be dire consequences if you disobey, is it different for you.

Definition of evil or sin is Disobedience to God.

if your disobedient to god what does he do?

Thats according. Be more specific please.

are there dire consequences if you disobey?

Lets go back in the day shall we. Adam and Eve had a choice to obey or disobey

no A&E where coerced, they had no understanding of good or evil, they were likened to chimps, and therefore would not have understood before eating of the fruit, that they were doing any wrong, and why put the tree there in the first place if it was not what you wanted.

Negative. They knew they were not supposed to eat the fruit.

how, they had no knowledge of good or evil, until after thay ate the fruit,

They were told no(Gen. 2:15-17).

but they had no understanding of good or evil so would not know what "no" meant.

The only thing that existed was good. They had knowledge of wrong and disobedience.

where did they get this knowledge if they had'nt yet eaten of the fruit.

Now also why would the man feel guilty if he didnt know.

he did not feel guity until after he had eaten of the fruit.

For instance it isnt right to punish a child when they do something wrong and they didnt know what they were doing was wrong.

exactly so why was man punished unless God wanted it that way.

For instance we know it is wrong to murder someone right. Ok.

so does god, but still does it.

You are going to have to back that up.

see the answer at the top of this post to see how many times god has killed and how many. heres the link again incase you missed it.

God cant choose between good and evil because He is good.

is this the god of the bible, you refering too.

Yes.

then you should definitely check out the link, or read your bible.

we chose to disobey now there are consequences from our disobedience (ex. Tsunami, death, disease ect..)[/quote=audible]we made no such choice.

Oh well that just changes everything

see above answer regard adam and eve.

(light came before darkness)

you've got that back to front.

What?

out of the darkness comes light.

He can only do one thing, that is Good.

then if he cant do evil as you say, but he seem to have done it countless times, then he would not understand evil, and evil would not exist, which make him worthless, because evil does, therefore he cant exist.
a morally neutral god cannot exist.

A morally Neutral god cannot exist that is true. You dont have to do evil to have knowledge of it. You have knowledge of girls but that doesnt mean you have to be one to know they exist.

rubbish an all good god, would have no knowledge or understanding of evil.

 

[Lawdog]

Dear Lawdog

When you say the will of God is already fixed on the good, how did this come to be (if He has no free will)?

in every intellectual being there is will, just as in every sensible being there is animal appetite. And so there must be will in God, since there is intellect in Him. And as His intellect is His own existence, so is His will.

Although nothing apart from God is His end, yet He Himself is the end with respect to all things made by Him. And this by His essence, for by His essence He is good, for the end has the aspect of good.

Will in us belongs to the appetitive part, which, although named from appetite, has not for its only act the seeking what it does not possess; but also the loving and the delighting in what it does possess. In this respect will is said to be in God, as having always good which is its object, since, as already said, it is not distinct from His essence.

A will of which the principal object is a good outside itself, must be moved by another; but the object of the divine will is His goodness, which is His essence. Hence, since the will of God is His essence, it is not moved by another than itself, but by itself alone, in the same sense as understanding and willing are said to be movement. This is what Plato meant when he said that the first mover moves itself.

 

[Light Travelling]

God has no Free Will

There are three proofs that God has no "free will" using two properties of a white light God, and the fact it is said to be an ultimate Creator:

* Omniscience (all-knowing): An omniscient being does not have free will.
* Benevolence: An all-good God has no free will.
* God exists outside of time... where there is no free will
* Conclusion: God is not moral


What is the point of saying that God is moral, if God cannot choose to do anything bad? How can it be a moral being, if it has no choice? The answer is that God is not a moral being, it is a morally neutral being.

V Crabtree

A rock can only ever act as a rock. A fish can only ever act as a fish. And God can only ever act as God.

God has no freewill he is only love, performs no 'bad' actions and is above human morality, So whats your point? - surley this is a good thing?

 

[mustafhakofi]

and the non-existent can only be non-existent, I refer you to the post audible posted in his reply to warrior http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html that covers the love rubbish and no bad actions, if he is above human morality, should he not show by example, cause quite clearly he does not. an evil god, is not a good thing.

 

[audible]

thank musta could not have put it better myself.

 

[Light Travelling]

and the non-existent can only be non-existent, I refer you to the post audible posted in his reply to warrior http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html that covers the love rubbish and no bad actions, if he is above human morality, should he not show by example, cause quite clearly he does not. an evil god, is not a good thing.

I am trying to follow audible's logic to try to see what all this is suppossed to demonstrate.

You confuse being above human morality i.e. having none (which is what I said) with taking a higher form of human morality (which is what you said).

So if god does bad things (by your standards) so what - what does that prove?

Logically it only proves that you dont agree with the things god does. So what??? does this prove non existence.

You say an evil god is not a good thing, so what are you going to do about it? There is an evil god and you dont like him. and.........???? If there is a god and he is evil (by your moral standard) what are you or I gonna do about it?? run and hide I think.


He says

There are three proofs that God has no "free will" using two properties of a white light God, and the fact it is said to be an ultimate Creator:

* Omniscience (all-knowing): An omniscient being does not have free will.
* Benevolence: An all-good God has no free will.
* God exists outside of time... where there is no free will
* Conclusion: God is not moral

* An omniscient being does not have free will

And I say, OK god has no freewill. It is perfectly possible that god has no freewill. It is also possible we have no freewill. But so what? Is this suppossed to prove god does not exist?? or what then???

He says

What is the point of saying that God is moral, if God cannot choose to do anything bad? How can it be a moral being, if it has no choice? The answer is that God is not a moral being, it is a morally neutral being.

So god is morally neutral - he has no morals. Or should we say his actions do not conform to what you consider morally correct.

So god is bad - so what. Do we then believe non existence because we dont like bad things. Should I say I dont believe in rape because its evil so it cant exist........... sorry I'm not following your logic here.

Or are you saying that the christian desciption of god is incorrect (judging by the bible link you probably are). OK thats fine christian description of god is incorrect. But is that it? all this just to show christain description is incorrect??

Again whaats yer point?? What are you trying to demonstrate. Maybe you just dont like god cos hes a bad dude? fine but you seem to be laying out some sort of logical argument that intends to porve somthing...... and I say you are not making any point here.....

 

[jcarl]

God turned the light on. he also knows that he does not have the free will to go back and change that choice. It is impossible, even if he wants to, he can't. If you knew a choice you was going to make in the future... what would it mean? You would have no free will to change that choice. No option, no choices... based on the fact that you know it's going to happen, it is predestined and no amount of strong will can change it.

So right now we have dueling definitions of free will

You say that free will is best defined as
1) the ability to do othewise; to do or not to do; to have more than one option.[this is based on your assertion that if God has perfect knowledge of what he will do in the future, then it is fixed, and thus he can not but do that future action.]

I say that free will is best defined as
2) the will to choose sufficiently and necessarily resides internally within an agent and is not determined by outside forces.

2),by the way, is over against any deterministic hypotheses that state that the causes for action of an agent are sufficiently outside of the agent.

Now I would argue that 1) is not necessary for an agent to have free will. Here's a thought experiment to illustrate: say that each day you wake up at 5 a.m. and run 10 miles. You do it not just to stay in shape, but also because you genuinely love to run. However, one day you are kidnapped and taken to a gulag where every day at 5 a.m. you were forced to run 10 miles. Now when you are forced to run in the gulag, you would not really be "forced" as such because you would do it anyway. But on the first definition it doesn't seem that you would have free will, since you would not have more than one option. This is why I don't see 1) as a neccessary condition for free will. However, 2) would fit in nicely with this thought experiment because regardless of whether or not you were forced to run you would still perform the action of rising early and running. Does this make sense?