Hopefully you’re familiar with the Problem Of Evil (POE). The *Freewill Defense* argues that the problem of evil fails to disprove a benevolent God. The defense posits a scenario where it is morally good for God to create free agents, who then go on to do evil in the world, outside of God’s control. The result is a world containing evil, created by a morally good God.
The defense seems to be successful in that it disproves the POE (in its strict form). However, it has awkward theological consequences for tri-omni theists, especially Christians. If you accept the freewill defense, then you need to accept the consequences. If you don’t accept the consequences, you need to find a different defense against the POE.
**What are these theological consequences?**
The freewill defense takes away your moral agency.
How?
Suppose you are a person who is loving and kind, and you want to never hurt another person. Despite all this, one day you are out walking and you decide to brutally beat someone to death. You didn’t want to hurt them. You had no desire or intention to do the act. However, because you have free will, none of this determined that you would not suddenly murder someone.
This kind of weird scenario is *required* by the freewill defense. If it wasn’t, then God could simply create people with good natures, who always freely choose to make good choices and never do evil. The whole point of the Freewill Defense is that God *cannot* create people who are guaranteed to do good while maintaining their freewill.
This takes away your moral agency. Even if you don’t want to do evil, you may still end up doing evil. There is nothing in you that determines whether you choose to do evil or good.
For Christians, this removes your assurance of salvation. At any point in the future, because you have free will, you may decide to reject Jesus. No matter how much you want heaven, you cannot determine that you will choose it.
**This is the logical result of non-deterministic free will.**
The Freewill Defense means that your nature does not determine what choices you make. This flies in the face of what we intuitively understand freedom to mean. But it also removes moral culpability and trust.
If these consequences go against your theology, you should stop using the freewill defense and generally reject libertarian free will.
Joe Schmidt from “Majesty of reason” has a video about the luck objection to libertarian free will that touches on some of the points you’re making. I think it makes a compelling case.
> And, hopefully, you’re familiar with The Problem Of Evil (P.O.E.). So, The Free-Will Defense primarily argues that The Problem Of Evil ultimately fails to actually disprove a Omni-Benevolent God, and The Free Will Defense posits a scenario where it’s morally good for God to primarily create free agents, who then go on to do Evil in an world that’s outsidely external of God’s control, and thus, the result is a world that inevitably contains Evil. Within a world that was created by a Morally Good God.
Well, Generally Speaking, and for Simplicity’s Sake, all of this majorly if not entirely depends on such things and matters such as on if said Free Agents would use said Free Will to generally all-around act on and actively do said Evils at all. – (And, even then, defenses such as The Free-Will Defense only outright implies, if not outright says, that in an theoretically hypothetical world, living beings that realistically have Free Will and are Free Agents in and of themselves, could possibly use said Free Will to instantly do things that are truly Evil. – Amongst many other things and matters.). – But… – Okay.
> The Defense seems to be successful in that it disproves The P.O.E. in its strictest form. However, it has awkwardly theological consequences for Tri-Omni Theists, and especially for Christians themselves. So, if you willingly accept The Free-Will Defense, then you need to also wholly accept the consequences of said Free Will, and if you don’t totally accept the consequences, then you need to find a different defense against The P.O.E.. So what are these religiously theological consequences? The Free-Will Defense fundamentally takes away your Moral Agency. How? Well, suppose you are a person who is lovingly kind, and you would never want to brutally hurt another person. But, despite all of this, one day you’re out walking and then you decide to violently beat someone to death. You didn’t want to hurt them and you also had no desire nor any intentions to do said act. However, and because you have Free Will, none of this inevitably determined that you would not suddenly murder someone.
Alright. – Okay. – And Proof?
> This kind of strangely weird scenario is required by The Free-Will Defense. Because if it wasn’t, then God could simply create people with good natures, who always freely choose to make good choices and to never do Evil. The whole point of The Free Will Defense is that God can’t ultimately create people who are guaranteed to do Good while also maintaining their Free Will.
Proof?
> This basically takes away your Moral Agency. So, even if you don’t want to do Evil, you may still end up doing Evil, and there’s absolutely nothing in you that determines whether you choose to do Evil or Good.
Proof?
> And, for Christians, this removes your assurance of salvation, and so, at any point in the future, and because you have Free Will, you may personally decide to wholly reject Jesus, and no matter how much you want Heaven, you can’t determinedly conclude that you’ll choose said option and that you’ll also say and act on said choices.
How So? – And Why Not?
> This is the logically rational result of Non-Deterministic Free Will.
Absolutely Not.
> The Free Will Defense means that your nature doesn’t honestly determine what choices you make. This flies in the face of what we intuitively understand Freedom to mean. But it also removes moral culpability and trust.
Proof? – Such As? – And How So?
> If these consequences go against your theology, you should actually stop using The Free Will Defense and you should also generally reject Libertarian Free Will.
Well… – Alright. – Okay.
>This takes away your moral agency. Even if you don’t want to do evil, you may still end up doing evil. There is nothing in you that determines whether you choose to do evil or good.
Correction: Even if you don’t want to do evil **right now**, you may still end up **wanting to do** evil.
We’re not forced to do evil, that’s the entire point of free will.
I’m not a religious person but your logic isn’t really making sense to me here. In your post and your comments you mention free will “just doing” stuff, as if it’s a separate entity instead of a theoretical part of a person’s mind. If I don’t want to do something, I don’t have to do it and am capable of rejecting it short of a severe mental health issue or physically being forced to do it. I’m not really arguing against your broader point because I agree that a religious person can never be 100% sure they’re going to heaven, but they think they’re 100% sure god(s) exist without any evidence to back that claim up so they definitely think they have a guarantee.
>The whole point of the Freewill Defense is that God cannot create people who are guaranteed to do good while maintaining their freewill.
What do you think free will is? A switch? A footnote in our soul? You think that a person has the free will choice to choose to obey or disobey God, without actually being able to disobey God? That doesn’t make sense.
>For Christians, this removes your assurance of salvation. At any point in the future, because you have free will, you may decide to reject Jesus. No matter how much you want heaven, you cannot determine that you will choose it.
I’m not following. Are you arguing this point under the assumption of no eternal security?
Not all Christians believe in the assurance of salvation is necessary theology. We need only believe that if we have faith, that God has his end covered. When the bible talks about assurance of salvation faith is being assumed here. Its talking about us being sure that Jesus wont just yoink it away for no reason or that we will not fail because we didn’t say enough hail Mary prayers or what ever crap the Catholics teach.
Your argument is at best an argument against Calvinists who already don’t use the free will defence because they don’t believe in free will. They love the idea that God tortures babies. This is hardly the cream of the crop when it comes to Christian denominations.
[removed]