That is a good question. God did not create humans with the desire to punch themselves in the face, does that count as coercion? Are we not free because we do not want to hurt ourselves? How is that any different than creating us without the desire to murder?
Ander Smith Also RUclips seems to be blocking some comments for no apparent reason. You said: "If God gave us the freedom to alter the amount of things we can do, clearly he has no problem with us using it." I would respond that the problem is why is there evil in the world if God is all powerful? Once someone has chosen to do evil why does God not strike them down as they have made their choice? Or at least limit their freedom so that they cannot do more evil?
Carneades.org If I knew that a god existed that would strike me down if I made a bad choice, I wouldn't make bad choices. I wouldn't truly be free. And if I knew god would limit my choices after I make a bad choice, I wouldn't make bad choices. And I would argue god doesn't strike down anyone. We know the laws of physics cause natural events to occur, not god.
This world is the testing ground. Every one is free to a degree. We are tested with the questions we have. We will received our results and rewards accordingly. From the Muslim perspective, God is All-Powerful and He is Full-Free in His Will. He has given us a partial will to choose among the things He offers. We are free to choose among the options we are given yet there are harmful options as well - just like correct answers and wrong answers in a test. You cannot tell your teacher to punish immediately your friends who filled the wrong circle. No, they will wait to see the correct answers. Human is free within the given realm and its options. These options are the questions of this worldly test. Is it clear?
@@ciroguerra-lara6747 According to Muslim philosopher Nursi, all is good in this world. For God is all, all that comes from Him is good too. God is Beautfiful and He likes beauty that is why He creates beautifully. But there are two sorts of beauty / goodness. ***One is direct beauty (Husn bizzat):*** When you look at something (beautiful sceneries, roses, spring etc), in the face value it is good. No discussion on that. It is good. ***The second (Husn bil-ghayr):*** Indirect beauty - not evil. These are the things that apparently look evil and ugly yet they are good in terms of their results. (e.g: I couldn't play because it rained outside. Apparently evil for me yet its end results are good that I can drink water, eat vegetables thanks to the rain sent by God). As we are limited and we cannot the see universal picture, some of the incidents look ugly for us, yet, God creates everything beautifully and He makes it meaningful in the greater picture.
An interesting viewpoint. I think the next question would be, if freedom of thought is all that is required for free will, why would God not create us with the ability to think however we wish, but restrain our actions? I can think about being able to fly, but that does not mean I can do it, why not the same with evil?
But if God is concerned with saving the most people why does he not just save them all? Why does he not make everyone so they only do good? Why does he allow for such situations that create evil people? Do you believe that he would be happy if we let murderers go here?
It seems the main reason that Plantinga does put forward Libertarianism (which is a difficult position to justify), is primarily in order to have a response to the problem of evil. If determinism is the case, then the theist lacks a convincing response to this problem. As you astutely pointed out, positing Satan will simply revert back to God, as God created Satan in the first place. And if Satan had "Free Will" we are back to the original problem.
Ander Smith I'm concerned with the statement that "No situation can create an evil person. The person has to choose to do evil." Take an engineer that accidentally makes a mistake on a plan that ends up killing thousands of people. Is his action not evil? God say thou shalt not kill, but the engineer made no choice. He would still be put in prison, yet he did no evil? What of someone that was raised in a society where lying is the status quo? Is her action still evil when she lies even if she believes that she is doing good? Bearing false witness and all that jazz. Finally what of someone raised in a culture where they are told homosexuals should be stoned to death. Do they do evil when they stone someone? They, just like the engineer did not know it was evil so how are they culpable?
The question of is there free will in heaven is another problem for the theist. If they respond that there is not, then how can heaven be all good. If there is, then why is there not evil like there is on earth. A common response is to claim that heaven is only for those that choose the good naturally, but if so, why couldn't earth be the same?
The point of the Problem of Evil is that this often leads to people not merely asking questions, but questioning their faith entirely. Why pray to a God that would let such things happen? It does not seem that such a God is really all loving, and what is the point of praying to a cruel vengeful God?
If determinism is the case, that seems correct. If, however, it is the case that free will is an illusion and determinism is the case, Plantinga's argument is a non-starter as it assumes a libertarian picture of free will (definitions: /watch?v=CEMj9nx1T-k). This leaves the theist with the Problem of Evil.
Great argument! But I didn't find the defence very compelling in the first place, since it doesn't explain the suffering of animals and natural disasters.
An interesting response to the problem of evil. It gets rid of the possibility of an all perfect God and therefore seems to be one of the "adequate" responses to the problem. Pantheism, cool, one finds the most interesting viewpoints out here on this internet of ours.
***** Let em clarify, What if God created a world where we could not commit homicide (killing another human)? How would this world be worse than one where we can commit homicide?
It sounds suspiciously like the robotic laws of Asimov. You'd first have to define homicide clearly and distinctly, covering all possible angles such as 'not allowing a human to come to harm by action or inaction.' There would be no sending anyone into a dangerous situation such as a rescue mission in a crumbling building with victims in it. If the building collapsed, you would be guilty of killing the rescuer you sent in. If you send no one, you are guilty of letting the victims die by inaction. In either case, you would have effectively sentenced one or the other to death. Also, would homicide include suicide?
***** A good question. I think that it is not for me to respond to, but the theist, or perhaps God. According to the theist God has a clear vision of what act would constitute breaking the commandment "thou shalt not kill". If the theist claims that there are specific acts that constitute "killing" and are immoral and others that do not constitute "killing" and are moral, then it is the immoral ones that would be prevented and the moral ones that would not. Sorry if this seems like a bit of a dodge, but it does seem to me that it is up to the theist that posits morals to define them.
If the parents are omnipotent (all-powerful) and omniscient (all knowing), it would seem so as they would know exactly what would make that child good, and they would have the power to make that child so.
They have to be saved and do good by their own choice. And on Christianity, no situation can create an evil person. The person has to choose to be evil. And the fact that he doesn't put murderers in prison himself doesn't mean he's not OK with us putting them in prison.
+CRAIG LEE The question here is about ability, which requires both will and action. For Plantinga's argument to work we don't just need to will to freely choose evil, we need to actually be able to do evil. We need to take action, since otherwise the problem of evil's defender could claim that God should let us choose evil, but never actually sucveed in taking an evil action.
I agree, CRAIG LEE. Carneades.org is confusing Free Will with ability/power/freedom in the world. Every person from B to G have free will, and even Amy can have free will - if she, say, has some kinds of lucid dreams in her coma state. Free Will only requires a small amount of ability - that is being in possession of a functioning brain of a certain level - and being conscious (or something close to that). - The argument in this video is pretty nice, but it is ruined by this lack of distinction.
Re-watching the video. Noticed that the conclusion of not being able to kill someone is a limitation on free will. But my conclusion is that it would actually increase the free will. This is based on the thought that killing some one makes them into "Cam"(limited scope on free will due to time) instead of being "Edd"(normal). If no one died we would have more free will.
If determinism doesn't explain an action, it must be explained by an acausal, retro-causal, causa sui or ex-nihilo mechanism. However these alternative prospects also prohibit an action from being freely willed, or free of factors over which the actor has control. I agree that Plantingna's argument lacks merit. Regarding evil, I don't see why it can't be attributed to Satan, however God would still be *ultimately* morally accountable for having created Satan, even if Satan had a free will.
10:08 About 2-7): Maybe God knew in advance how far we can advance our freedom, which means even if we reach our limits, that will still be less freedom than what God could've given us, and not more than what's optimal for the best possible world. A theist might also claim that the total amount of human freedom on average remains above the optimal limit even if some people are in prison, and it would be impossible for us to imprison enough people to go below the optimal amount of freedom. What do you think? Thank you for the video as always!
You should take conflicting interests and wills into an account for your argument. After all, would you consider yourself free when you are under the influence and hindrance of others? (making the assumption that we coexist on a finite planet and we are without an absolute homogenous will)
+Bob “Bobsiken” Olsemann It would depend on whether being under such influence makes it possible for you to do things. If it is not possible for you to act against that influence, then you would not be free. If you can act against the influence, though it may be hard, then you are free. The point is that if we all ow for partial free will of this kind, the free will defense falls apart.
Because what goes on in Bob's, Cam's, Don's, Ed's (etc) mind is completely compelled by causal antecedents that regress back to before Bob's, Cam's Don's, and Ed's (etc.) birth, he actually has no more free will than does Amy. Free will is like pregnancy; one can either have it or not, and all reason and evidence argues against it. Also, if we define God as omnibenevolant, God is completely compelled to be and do good, and therefore has no more of a free will than does Amy.
I see problems with last two arguments. Science and prisons don't necessarily change the amount of free will God allowed us. It might just change the range we are using. As for killing, disallowing it could be simply contrary to plantingas optimum point idea as far as we know..
What is the important difference between someone born with no arms or legs, or born in a coma. Do you think that these people were not created that way by God? Because many theists do. If we are in the world that is the best of all possible worlds, then it is a world where some people get free will and others don't. If God is all powerful, it does not seem like a logical contradiction to make it so no one is born without the same freedom as everyone else. Thinking that it is logically required for someone to be born with a disability seems like a big bullet to bite. The onus is on Plantinga to show that everyone being born able bodied is logically impossible. Similarly, the onus is on Plantinga to show that murder and rape are not just things that happen, but they are logically required for the universe to function. For Plantinga it is logically impossible for us to imagine a world without rape. Similarly the ability to heal wounds with our minds is not just a feature of biology, it must be logically impossible for such a world to exist. I can imagine such a world and see no logical contradiction. Why can't you?
Ok... no disagreements there. Obviously it'd be better if Plantinga demonstrated why current conditions are ideal. But his argument doesn't hinge on that. It is only stating that God may have set it this way for idealized reasons that may be unknown to us. It only serves as a weak defense that hides behind a veil of possibility. I don't think it's meant to be some assertive "this is the way it had to be and I can prove it" thing. It is just a "this is why your dilemma could be wrong thing". It is an argument skeptic of the skeptic argument against free will. Well, maybe Plantinga meant it to be more than that. But that's as far as he got. And yes the inequitable free will is apparent (and gross to think of God doing it) but again not a defeater to the notion that it had to be this way to be optimized. Lastly, I love that you replied and find both of your remarks interesting. However, neither is really a counterpoint to what I said; they were more of a pivot. Not that I'm assuming you meant to respond to objections. Seemed more of a "have you thought of this interesting thing too?" kind of remark. For context, I am also a skeptic. Not an academic skeptic, but I do tend to say I don't know to everything lol (which I think is your position). High pragmatic confidence is as close as I get to truth. But I have to say that I think those last two arguments in the video hit the strawman instead of what you wanted to hit. Worse yet, the remarks in reply did it again lol By the way, I'm saving for a $100 donation or more to your channel. I'm over 100 vids in. You are awesome! - an ontological statement brought to you by someone who may be a nihilist (that last bit is a joke, maybe...)
The consecutives bunch of questions boils down to a final edge: "why we don't have the omnipotence, absolute free will like God has, eventualy why not omnibenevolence and omniscience?" And here it is raised the contradiction for God to create himsellf, or like an 100%at parity-God who nulifies the God(all knowing, all goodness, all powerfull) who eventualy turns against the original God and nulify Him and we are left we one God, back to origins . It is clear that free will defense is defined in certain limits of freedom("limited freedom"), is not absolute because it raises ontologycal and logical contradiction .
carmel Ka If God were actually all knowing, then he would know that that which he created would turn against him. If he were actually all powerful, he could destroy such a thing. If you think that he is simply very powerful but not omnipotent, or simply very powerful, but not omniscient, you can avoid this problem, but you will have conceded the problem of evil.
If the prisoner is not put in prison then he will put us in prison . So prison should be there but with the intention of rehabilitation..Is it possible?God gave us the freewill to control and direct our sensual actions because we are being influenced by environment and karma.
The theists say that their god chose to create a universe with free will, and thus there must be evil in this universe of free will. Yet the theist then says that their god created heaven/paradise and there is no evil there. So do the entities in heaven/paradise have free will or not? If they have free will there, why is it possible to create that in heaven/paradise but not the universe we live in? Or if no free will in heaven/paradise then the theists has to explain Satan's rebellion.
I tend to be a pantheist in the sense of holding God and the universe as synonymous. While I prefer to consider God omnibenevolent, the only way I can logically do this is by concluding that he is imperfect; pain and the evil that causes it being his only, but far from inconsequential, mistake.
If God is all good, then why can't be make Earth be like Heaven? Unless there is no freewill in Heaven, in Heaven, God created a world where we are free as we are now (we may actually have more freedom), yet evil is impossible.
Isn't Heaven supposed to be pretty much like before-the-original-sin? That is to say, God created the bestest best world of bestness, but humans screwed up and became vulnerable to evil. Then Heaven is just Eden 2.0. God can't make Earth into Heaven right now at this moment, because that would be interfering with the free will of people. People have to realize by themselves that they need to accept God. At least, that's what I gathered from a synopsis of a book written by some van Inwagen dude, but I might be talking out of my ass here and misunderstanding everything.
Argument 1. But, does not making a world were killing is not possible, reduce or free will ? Maybe it is more benevolent for us to have the more free will than the free will we would have in a world were killing would be impossible. Also if there was a world were killing was impossible that would entail much more than just being enable to kill. That would also mean that we would have no idea about what killing is, so that would reduce our thinking boundary.. it seems to me P4 is not true. Removing the ability to do something ultimately reduces our free will. P4 must be false. Argument 2. I can hardly take this one seriously. First of all, a definition of the term would be nice. What do you mean by freedom ? And what do you mean by worse ? Does a world were more evil occurs worse than world were less evil occurs ? Why ? I think what is missed here is to define what evil is.. How does Prison or Science change human's freedom ? Do you mean freedom to move ? How does freedom to move from point A to point B makes the world worse ? if by freedom you mean our ability to do good then, can't people go to Prison as murderer and go out 30 later with a different mind and understanding that what they have done was bad. Then they try to do good. I can surely imagine such a world. I can imagine a world were evil brings about a better good. Than world were there is no evil and a lesser good. Maybe it is necessary to have the greatest good only by living in a world were we have evil. Maybe a world were there is no evil can bring about the greatest good. On argument 3. I can scarcely see the logic in P1. Can you ? ?
Noobish Well actually studies show that a belief in free will is beneficial for our species.. So even if you could prove free will does not exist I suppose the most rational position would be to still believe in free will, for health and the benefits the studies say go with it.. Not believing in free will makes you behave like a robot. journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0146167208327217 www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2757759/ www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103112001825 www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027713000231 "It has been shown that weakening such belief - e.g. by exposure to ‘anti-free will’ messages - can lead people to display antisocial tendencies" "These observations indicate that weakening the belief in free will can impact behavioral adjustment after an error, and could be the cause of antisocial and irresponsible behavior." i.e. a society is better off believing in free will. So the real question is: if you think free will doesn't exist, then you are a patronizing (which you are) robot and you are not rational for rejecting the facts that a belief in free will is more beneficial.
On target ! This is actually the right rebuttal of the free will argument. At best we have partial free will …Most probably not at all. A God could had very very easily made us with a wider illusion of free will and still moral and less suffering. Just some change in the chemistry of our brain, and its done.
Carneades.org Actually i made also one video on refuting the "free will" excuse for suffering argument and i came to the same conclusion "Partial Free Will" from a different approach. Thats why it struck me immediately that this argument must be valid. Independent reasoning coming to the same conclusion.
I'm thinking that the earth and communities of people is a complex system. And there may be emergent behavior from the system. Such as morality and testosterone makes people go out of their way to punish "immoral" behavior. And an emergent property of this system is that we actually do have prisons today. I don't think this affects this particular argument. But it might be a detriment to the arguments to only look at particular cases and specific actions, and forget Systemic properties and outcomes.
+Lockvir Tompson I agree. Often we look at the immediate consequences without understanding the full implications of our actions. It does seem to me that part of this problem comes from the fact that we don't know the long term implications of our actions.
Bad argument also because: all the "free will" discussed in this video, are compatibilist notions of free will. while everything we think (and by extension our actions) is determined by antecedent brain activity we are not consciously aware of. therefore, nobody in the thought experiment has any contra-causal free will. which is the only free will that matters.
I think there is a major flaw in your argument, It assumes god made the world absolutely perfect from the very beginning, when the world could be perfect in how things are ordered so that they could improve.
+kylerm18 But a world where you were free to murder whoever you want with a nuclear bomb woud provide people for a much better chance of improvement, if that is all we care about, then God could have mad epeople much more free than they are. If you think that is too extreme, why is that too extreme, but God giving that power to some people is not? And further, how can people that have no choice, are in a coma etc. improve their life? If we care about making choices why are some people not free while others are? Why are some people more free than others?
God is not concerned with murders etc.; he only cares about maximizing the # of people who get saved. A world without killing may not achieve that goal. The 2nd and 3rd arguments aren't convincing to me at all.
Bad argument. If god is omnipotent and he knows the future, he will know what he will do in the future, and he can't do otherwise than he knows he will do. So if god exists, (and scientifically speaking he does not) he couldn't have free will either. Free Will is incompatible with devine foreknowledge.
This entire argument is hinged upon a very dubious definition of "free will." You seem to be confusing freedom with unlimited ability. The government of the USA has several laws that restrict my actions. In those ways, they restrict my free will. However, while in the USA, I cannot flap my arms and fly like a bird. Does this mean the US government is restricting my free will to fly? Of course not! God did not limit our free will just because our bodies have certain limitations.
Yes. Free will simply means you make a decision without any factors being causally related to that decision prior to you making it. You are describing physical limitations. I am "free" to swim across that Atlantic Ocean, for example. I will very likely die attempting the feat, but I was free to try it.
Brandon Sheehy But can you really choose to swim the Atlantic Ocean if you cannot do it? You can choose to *try* to swim the ocean, but you cannot choose to actually swim it. It seems that you have less choice or freedom than someone that can actually swim it. What do you mean by "make a decision"? It cannot be anything that happens in the physical world as that could be impinged by physical limitations. I suppose libertarianism must be assumed to deal with this argument, so Let's move to the world of the mental. We cannot imagine anything. I cannot decide to multiply two numbers that are extremely large. We all have mental limitations. There are things that we cannot decide to do. We also have degrees of these mental limitations, some people can decide to do complex calculations while others cannot. Why if God has limited our mental facilities in one way, would he not limit them in such a way as prevent us from deciding to kill anyone? Why would he give us freedom to decide to do some things (like killing) but not others (like perfectly imagining every detail of an entire city)?
Carneades.org I'm not sure there's a parallel between our cognitive faculties and our free will, either. But I suppose the answer to that would be that God wanted us to have *significant* libertarian freedom. If we're choosing between neutral and good, then it's hardly free will. Richard Swinburne argues in "Providence and the Problem of Evil" that, in order to have good, you must have bad and the bad must actually be the more appealing or tempting option. If, for example, I only make a good decision because it was more convenient for me, than I didn't actually do the right thing. I would say the same would certainly apply here, where you are asking God to significantly limit our free will.
Brandon Sheehy So to be clear you are arguing that God limited our free will significantly because if he did not we might always freely choose the good? But is would not be good because we want it? Clearly you're not a consequentialist either. I think we are going to bottom out on a fundamental difference on our understanding of morality. So before we get there, let me ask you Moore's Open Question, what is good? How do you define good?
Carneades.org the reasons why philosophers have the abonden problem of evil is that God can have good reasons for his actions. The fact that atheists have not demonstrated why good reasons are impossible, means that the problem of evil cannot be used.
What a beautiful, step-by-step argument! I really like how well you've laid out all of the variables using the characters A to G! Well done!!! :)
A fascinating and compelling argument. Do you have a response to the higher order good defence as well?
That is a good question. God did not create humans with the desire to punch themselves in the face, does that count as coercion? Are we not free because we do not want to hurt ourselves? How is that any different than creating us without the desire to murder?
Ander Smith Also RUclips seems to be blocking some comments for no apparent reason. You said: "If God gave us the freedom to alter the amount of things we can do, clearly he has no problem with us using it." I would respond that the problem is why is there evil in the world if God is all powerful? Once someone has chosen to do evil why does God not strike them down as they have made their choice? Or at least limit their freedom so that they cannot do more evil?
Carneades.org If I knew that a god existed that would strike me down if I made a bad choice, I wouldn't make bad choices. I wouldn't truly be free. And if I knew god would limit my choices after I make a bad choice, I wouldn't make bad choices.
And I would argue god doesn't strike down anyone. We know the laws of physics cause natural events to occur, not god.
This world is the testing ground. Every one is free to a degree. We are tested with the questions we have. We will received our results and rewards accordingly. From the Muslim perspective, God is All-Powerful and He is Full-Free in His Will. He has given us a partial will to choose among the things He offers. We are free to choose among the options we are given yet there are harmful options as well - just like correct answers and wrong answers in a test. You cannot tell your teacher to punish immediately your friends who filled the wrong circle. No, they will wait to see the correct answers. Human is free within the given realm and its options. These options are the questions of this worldly test. Is it clear?
@@ciroguerra-lara6747 According to Muslim philosopher Nursi, all is good in this world. For God is all, all that comes from Him is good too. God is Beautfiful and He likes beauty that is why He creates beautifully. But there are two sorts of beauty / goodness. ***One is direct beauty (Husn bizzat):*** When you look at something (beautiful sceneries, roses, spring etc), in the face value it is good. No discussion on that. It is good. ***The second (Husn bil-ghayr):*** Indirect beauty - not evil. These are the things that apparently look evil and ugly yet they are good in terms of their results. (e.g: I couldn't play because it rained outside. Apparently evil for me yet its end results are good that I can drink water, eat vegetables thanks to the rain sent by God). As we are limited and we cannot the see universal picture, some of the incidents look ugly for us, yet, God creates everything beautifully and He makes it meaningful in the greater picture.
An interesting viewpoint. I think the next question would be, if freedom of thought is all that is required for free will, why would God not create us with the ability to think however we wish, but restrain our actions? I can think about being able to fly, but that does not mean I can do it, why not the same with evil?
But if God is concerned with saving the most people why does he not just save them all? Why does he not make everyone so they only do good? Why does he allow for such situations that create evil people? Do you believe that he would be happy if we let murderers go here?
It seems the main reason that Plantinga does put forward Libertarianism (which is a difficult position to justify), is primarily in order to have a response to the problem of evil. If determinism is the case, then the theist lacks a convincing response to this problem. As you astutely pointed out, positing Satan will simply revert back to God, as God created Satan in the first place. And if Satan had "Free Will" we are back to the original problem.
Ander Smith I'm concerned with the statement that "No situation can create an evil person. The person has to choose to do evil." Take an engineer that accidentally makes a mistake on a plan that ends up killing thousands of people. Is his action not evil? God say thou shalt not kill, but the engineer made no choice. He would still be put in prison, yet he did no evil? What of someone that was raised in a society where lying is the status quo? Is her action still evil when she lies even if she believes that she is doing good? Bearing false witness and all that jazz. Finally what of someone raised in a culture where they are told homosexuals should be stoned to death. Do they do evil when they stone someone? They, just like the engineer did not know it was evil so how are they culpable?
The question of is there free will in heaven is another problem for the theist. If they respond that there is not, then how can heaven be all good. If there is, then why is there not evil like there is on earth. A common response is to claim that heaven is only for those that choose the good naturally, but if so, why couldn't earth be the same?
The point of the Problem of Evil is that this often leads to people not merely asking questions, but questioning their faith entirely. Why pray to a God that would let such things happen? It does not seem that such a God is really all loving, and what is the point of praying to a cruel vengeful God?
If determinism is the case, that seems correct. If, however, it is the case that free will is an illusion and determinism is the case, Plantinga's argument is a non-starter as it assumes a libertarian picture of free will (definitions: /watch?v=CEMj9nx1T-k). This leaves the theist with the Problem of Evil.
Great argument! But I didn't find the defence very compelling in the first place, since it doesn't explain the suffering of animals and natural disasters.
Fkkize Suffering of animals is an interesting objection that I haven't heard before. I like it!
Our not having a free will means that nothing is ever anyone's fault. Absolution for all!
An interesting response to the problem of evil. It gets rid of the possibility of an all perfect God and therefore seems to be one of the "adequate" responses to the problem. Pantheism, cool, one finds the most interesting viewpoints out here on this internet of ours.
***** Let em clarify, What if God created a world where we could not commit homicide (killing another human)? How would this world be worse than one where we can commit homicide?
It sounds suspiciously like the robotic laws of Asimov. You'd first have to define homicide clearly and distinctly, covering all possible angles such as 'not allowing a human to come to harm by action or inaction.' There would be no sending anyone into a dangerous situation such as a rescue mission in a crumbling building with victims in it. If the building collapsed, you would be guilty of killing the rescuer you sent in. If you send no one, you are guilty of letting the victims die by inaction. In either case, you would have effectively sentenced one or the other to death.
Also, would homicide include suicide?
*****
A good question. I think that it is not for me to respond to, but the theist, or perhaps God. According to the theist God has a clear vision of what act would constitute breaking the commandment "thou shalt not kill". If the theist claims that there are specific acts that constitute "killing" and are immoral and others that do not constitute "killing" and are moral, then it is the immoral ones that would be prevented and the moral ones that would not.
Sorry if this seems like a bit of a dodge, but it does seem to me that it is up to the theist that posits morals to define them.
About the first one, isn't being able to kill and not doing it better than just nobody can kill because God prohibited it?
If the parents are omnipotent (all-powerful) and omniscient (all knowing), it would seem so as they would know exactly what would make that child good, and they would have the power to make that child so.
A parent may know his / her child but they test their child.
They have to be saved and do good by their own choice. And on Christianity, no situation can create an evil person. The person has to choose to be evil. And the fact that he doesn't put murderers in prison himself doesn't mean he's not OK with us putting them in prison.
Yeah. I agree. Free will, even if it is real, is always limited and anyone can imagine a better world adding a few more limitations.
I have a hypothetical: What if the theist god created humans with the free will to murder but no desire to do so, ever. Or is that a contradiction?
How do we get to the argument that a perfect god must create only the best of all possible worlds?
I fail to understand completely. I feel free will and action are being conflated here. Will leads to / initiates action and is not the action itself.
+CRAIG LEE The question here is about ability, which requires both will and action. For Plantinga's argument to work we don't just need to will to freely choose evil, we need to actually be able to do evil. We need to take action, since otherwise the problem of evil's defender could claim that God should let us choose evil, but never actually sucveed in taking an evil action.
I agree, CRAIG LEE. Carneades.org is confusing Free Will with ability/power/freedom in the world. Every person from B to G have free will, and even Amy can have free will - if she, say, has some kinds of lucid dreams in her coma state. Free Will only requires a small amount of ability - that is being in possession of a functioning brain of a certain level - and being conscious (or something close to that). - The argument in this video is pretty nice, but it is ruined by this lack of distinction.
Re-watching the video. Noticed that the conclusion of not being able to kill someone is a limitation on free will. But my conclusion is that it would actually increase the free will. This is based on the thought that killing some one makes them into "Cam"(limited scope on free will due to time) instead of being "Edd"(normal). If no one died we would have more free will.
If determinism doesn't explain an action, it must be explained by an acausal, retro-causal, causa sui or ex-nihilo mechanism. However these alternative prospects also prohibit an action from being freely willed, or free of factors over which the actor has control.
I agree that Plantingna's argument lacks merit.
Regarding evil, I don't see why it can't be attributed to Satan, however God would still be *ultimately* morally accountable for having created Satan, even if Satan had a free will.
10:08 About 2-7): Maybe God knew in advance how far we can advance our freedom, which means even if we reach our limits, that will still be less freedom than what God could've given us, and not more than what's optimal for the best possible world. A theist might also claim that the total amount of human freedom on average remains above the optimal limit even if some people are in prison, and it would be impossible for us to imprison enough people to go below the optimal amount of freedom. What do you think? Thank you for the video as always!
You should take conflicting interests and wills into an account for your argument. After all, would you consider yourself free when you are under the influence and hindrance of others? (making the assumption that we coexist on a finite planet and we are without an absolute homogenous will)
+Bob “Bobsiken” Olsemann It would depend on whether being under such influence makes it possible for you to do things. If it is not possible for you to act against that influence, then you would not be free. If you can act against the influence, though it may be hard, then you are free. The point is that if we all ow for partial free will of this kind, the free will defense falls apart.
Because what goes on in Bob's, Cam's, Don's, Ed's (etc) mind is completely compelled by causal antecedents that regress back to before Bob's, Cam's Don's, and Ed's (etc.) birth, he actually has no more free will than does Amy. Free will is like pregnancy; one can either have it or not, and all reason and evidence argues against it.
Also, if we define God as omnibenevolant, God is completely compelled to be and do good, and therefore has no more of a free will than does Amy.
I see problems with last two arguments. Science and prisons don't necessarily change the amount of free will God allowed us. It might just change the range we are using.
As for killing, disallowing it could be simply contrary to plantingas optimum point idea as far as we know..
What is the important difference between someone born with no arms or legs, or born in a coma. Do you think that these people were not created that way by God? Because many theists do. If we are in the world that is the best of all possible worlds, then it is a world where some people get free will and others don't. If God is all powerful, it does not seem like a logical contradiction to make it so no one is born without the same freedom as everyone else. Thinking that it is logically required for someone to be born with a disability seems like a big bullet to bite. The onus is on Plantinga to show that everyone being born able bodied is logically impossible.
Similarly, the onus is on Plantinga to show that murder and rape are not just things that happen, but they are logically required for the universe to function. For Plantinga it is logically impossible for us to imagine a world without rape. Similarly the ability to heal wounds with our minds is not just a feature of biology, it must be logically impossible for such a world to exist. I can imagine such a world and see no logical contradiction. Why can't you?
Ok... no disagreements there. Obviously it'd be better if Plantinga demonstrated why current conditions are ideal. But his argument doesn't hinge on that. It is only stating that God may have set it this way for idealized reasons that may be unknown to us. It only serves as a weak defense that hides behind a veil of possibility. I don't think it's meant to be some assertive "this is the way it had to be and I can prove it" thing. It is just a "this is why your dilemma could be wrong thing". It is an argument skeptic of the skeptic argument against free will. Well, maybe Plantinga meant it to be more than that. But that's as far as he got.
And yes the inequitable free will is apparent (and gross to think of God doing it) but again not a defeater to the notion that it had to be this way to be optimized.
Lastly, I love that you replied and find both of your remarks interesting. However, neither is really a counterpoint to what I said; they were more of a pivot. Not that I'm assuming you meant to respond to objections. Seemed more of a "have you thought of this interesting thing too?" kind of remark.
For context, I am also a skeptic. Not an academic skeptic, but I do tend to say I don't know to everything lol (which I think is your position). High pragmatic confidence is as close as I get to truth.
But I have to say that I think those last two arguments in the video hit the strawman instead of what you wanted to hit. Worse yet, the remarks in reply did it again lol
By the way, I'm saving for a $100 donation or more to your channel. I'm over 100 vids in. You are awesome! - an ontological statement brought to you by someone who may be a nihilist (that last bit is a joke, maybe...)
The consecutives bunch of questions boils down to a final edge: "why we don't have the omnipotence, absolute free will like God has, eventualy why not omnibenevolence and omniscience?"
And here it is raised the contradiction for God to create himsellf, or like an 100%at parity-God who nulifies the God(all knowing, all goodness, all powerfull) who eventualy turns against the original God and nulify Him and we are left we one God, back to origins .
It is clear that free will defense is defined in certain limits of freedom("limited freedom"), is not absolute because it raises ontologycal and logical contradiction .
carmel Ka If God were actually all knowing, then he would know that that which he created would turn against him. If he were actually all powerful, he could destroy such a thing. If you think that he is simply very powerful but not omnipotent, or simply very powerful, but not omniscient, you can avoid this problem, but you will have conceded the problem of evil.
If the prisoner is not put in prison then he will put us in prison . So prison should be there but with the intention of rehabilitation..Is it possible?God gave us the freewill to control and direct our sensual actions because we are being influenced by environment and karma.
The theists say that their god chose to create a universe with free will, and thus there must be evil in this universe of free will. Yet the theist then says that their god created heaven/paradise and there is no evil there. So do the entities in heaven/paradise have free will or not? If they have free will there, why is it possible to create that in heaven/paradise but not the universe we live in? Or if no free will in heaven/paradise then the theists has to explain Satan's rebellion.
I tend to be a pantheist in the sense of holding God and the universe as synonymous. While I prefer to consider God omnibenevolent, the only way I can logically do this is by concluding that he is imperfect; pain and the evil that causes it being his only, but far from inconsequential, mistake.
If God is all good, then why can't be make Earth be like Heaven?
Unless there is no freewill in Heaven, in Heaven, God created a world where we are free as we are now (we may actually have more freedom), yet evil is impossible.
Exactly. It's a serious problem.
Isn't Heaven supposed to be pretty much like before-the-original-sin? That is to say, God created the bestest best world of bestness, but humans screwed up and became vulnerable to evil. Then Heaven is just Eden 2.0.
God can't make Earth into Heaven right now at this moment, because that would be interfering with the free will of people. People have to realize by themselves that they need to accept God.
At least, that's what I gathered from a synopsis of a book written by some van Inwagen dude, but I might be talking out of my ass here and misunderstanding everything.
Argument 1.
But, does not making a world were killing is not possible, reduce or free will ?
Maybe it is more benevolent for us to have the more free will than the free will we would have in a world were killing would be impossible.
Also if there was a world were killing was impossible that would entail much more than just being enable to kill. That would also mean that we would have no idea about what killing is, so that would reduce our thinking boundary..
it seems to me P4 is not true.
Removing the ability to do something ultimately reduces our free will. P4 must be false.
Argument 2.
I can hardly take this one seriously. First of all, a definition of the term would be nice. What do you mean by freedom ? And what do you mean by worse ?
Does a world were more evil occurs worse than world were less evil occurs ? Why ? I think what is missed here is to define what evil is..
How does Prison or Science change human's freedom ? Do you mean freedom to move ?
How does freedom to move from point A to point B makes the world worse ?
if by freedom you mean our ability to do good then, can't people go to Prison as murderer and go out 30 later with a different mind and understanding that what they have done was bad. Then they try to do good. I can surely imagine such a world.
I can imagine a world were evil brings about a better good. Than world were there is no evil and a lesser good.
Maybe it is necessary to have the greatest good only by living in a world were we have evil. Maybe a world were there is no evil can bring about the greatest good.
On argument 3.
I can scarcely see the logic in P1. Can you ? ?
Noobish
Nice rebuttal. I'm compelled to believe you.
Noobish
Well actually studies show that a belief in free will is beneficial for our species..
So even if you could prove free will does not exist I suppose the most rational position would be to still believe in free will, for health and the benefits the studies say go with it..
Not believing in free will makes you behave like a robot.
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0146167208327217
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2757759/
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103112001825
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027713000231
"It has been shown that weakening such belief - e.g. by exposure to ‘anti-free will’ messages - can lead people to display antisocial tendencies"
"These observations indicate that weakening the belief in free will can impact behavioral adjustment after an error, and could be the cause of antisocial and irresponsible behavior."
i.e. a society is better off believing in free will.
So the real question is: if you think free will doesn't exist, then you are a patronizing (which you are) robot and you are not rational for rejecting the facts that a belief in free will is more beneficial.
On target ! This is actually the right rebuttal of the free will argument. At best we have partial free will …Most probably not at all. A God could had very very easily made us with a wider illusion of free will and still moral and less suffering.
Just some change in the chemistry of our brain, and its done.
Thanks! And thanks for watching!
Carneades.org Actually i made also one video on refuting the "free will" excuse for suffering argument and i came to the same conclusion "Partial Free Will" from a different approach. Thats why it struck me immediately that this argument must be valid. Independent reasoning coming to the same conclusion.
I'm thinking that the earth and communities of people is a complex system. And there may be emergent behavior from the system. Such as morality and testosterone makes people go out of their way to punish "immoral" behavior. And an emergent property of this system is that we actually do have prisons today. I don't think this affects this particular argument. But it might be a detriment to the arguments to only look at particular cases and specific actions, and forget Systemic properties and outcomes.
+Lockvir Tompson I agree. Often we look at the immediate consequences without understanding the full implications of our actions. It does seem to me that part of this problem comes from the fact that we don't know the long term implications of our actions.
will =/= ability
Not only that but if there is no free will in heaven/paradise then the theist has lot of other inconsistencies to explain.
Bad argument also because: all the "free will" discussed in this video, are compatibilist notions of free will. while everything we think (and by extension our actions) is determined by antecedent brain activity we are not consciously aware of. therefore, nobody in the thought experiment has any contra-causal free will. which is the only free will that matters.
I think there is a major flaw in your argument, It assumes god made the world absolutely perfect from the very beginning, when the world could be perfect in how things are ordered so that they could improve.
+kylerm18 But a world where you were free to murder whoever you want with a nuclear bomb woud provide people for a much better chance of improvement, if that is all we care about, then God could have mad epeople much more free than they are. If you think that is too extreme, why is that too extreme, but God giving that power to some people is not? And further, how can people that have no choice, are in a coma etc. improve their life? If we care about making choices why are some people not free while others are? Why are some people more free than others?
God is not concerned with murders etc.; he only cares about maximizing the # of people who get saved. A world without killing may not achieve that goal.
The 2nd and 3rd arguments aren't convincing to me at all.
Not bad..
Bad argument. If god is omnipotent and he knows the future, he will know what he will do in the future, and he can't do otherwise than he knows he will do. So if god exists, (and scientifically speaking he does not) he couldn't have free will either. Free Will is incompatible with devine foreknowledge.
This entire argument is hinged upon a very dubious definition of "free will." You seem to be confusing freedom with unlimited ability. The government of the USA has several laws that restrict my actions. In those ways, they restrict my free will. However, while in the USA, I cannot flap my arms and fly like a bird. Does this mean the US government is restricting my free will to fly? Of course not! God did not limit our free will just because our bodies have certain limitations.
So you are saying that someone in a coma has just as much free will as an all powerful deity? How are you defining free will?
Yes. Free will simply means you make a decision without any factors being causally related to that decision prior to you making it. You are describing physical limitations. I am "free" to swim across that Atlantic Ocean, for example. I will very likely die attempting the feat, but I was free to try it.
Brandon Sheehy But can you really choose to swim the Atlantic Ocean if you cannot do it? You can choose to *try* to swim the ocean, but you cannot choose to actually swim it. It seems that you have less choice or freedom than someone that can actually swim it. What do you mean by "make a decision"? It cannot be anything that happens in the physical world as that could be impinged by physical limitations.
I suppose libertarianism must be assumed to deal with this argument, so Let's move to the world of the mental. We cannot imagine anything. I cannot decide to multiply two numbers that are extremely large. We all have mental limitations. There are things that we cannot decide to do. We also have degrees of these mental limitations, some people can decide to do complex calculations while others cannot. Why if God has limited our mental facilities in one way, would he not limit them in such a way as prevent us from deciding to kill anyone? Why would he give us freedom to decide to do some things (like killing) but not others (like perfectly imagining every detail of an entire city)?
Carneades.org I'm not sure there's a parallel between our cognitive faculties and our free will, either. But I suppose the answer to that would be that God wanted us to have *significant* libertarian freedom. If we're choosing between neutral and good, then it's hardly free will. Richard Swinburne argues in "Providence and the Problem of Evil" that, in order to have good, you must have bad and the bad must actually be the more appealing or tempting option. If, for example, I only make a good decision because it was more convenient for me, than I didn't actually do the right thing. I would say the same would certainly apply here, where you are asking God to significantly limit our free will.
Brandon Sheehy
So to be clear you are arguing that God limited our free will significantly because if he did not we might always freely choose the good? But is would not be good because we want it? Clearly you're not a consequentialist either. I think we are going to bottom out on a fundamental difference on our understanding of morality. So before we get there, let me ask you Moore's Open Question, what is good? How do you define good?
Carneades.org the reasons why philosophers have the abonden problem of evil is that God can have good reasons for his actions. The fact that atheists have not demonstrated why good reasons are impossible, means that the problem of evil cannot be used.
Are you really free to love good if the option to refuse evil is impossible?
Are you really free to choose good OR evil if the option to refuse the opposite at that moment in time is impossible?