ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Religion and Philosophy»
  • Atheism & Agnosticism

We have no Free Will (If we were created by God)

Updated on September 11, 2015

It's Fundamentally So

It becomes concerning that most of those who believe in a God based upon the Qur'an, Bible or Torah do not realise that we do not have free will if were created by an omniscient God.

This is because fundamentally, if we were willingly created by a God who already knew what we would do before we did it, it was his choice, not ours, for us to do it.

This is because when he created us, he would have created how we decide and react to things. When people commit crimes or sins, it is because of the way they dealt with their experiences, the way they reacted to external stimulus in the past. But have you ever wondered exactly why we react to things the way we do?

Simply put, if God created humans, then he created the way in which humans think and respond to things that happens to them. Why does a child that isn't loved by anyone become bitter and angry in his life? It is human nature we say. But God created human nature. He created the way in which we react.

This is why it is an incredibly weak argument to suggest that any wrongs in the world are because of the ways humans have reacted to things that happen to them. Humans react according to how they were programmed to react. Programming that God gave them.

See the resemblance?
See the resemblance? | Source

The Robot Analogy

This may be easier understood by an analogy using robots:

I build a robot who has 100,000 choices to make in his lifetime before he reproduces and dies. He roams around, sees things, and decides what to do from there. Since I programmed him, and the environment he lives in, I know where he will go and how he will react to the environment I created for him. I made the way in which he reacts to every thing he could see. Therefore, I know which choices he will make for every 100,000 choices that he has to make in his lifetime.

Since I knew what 100,000 choices he will make with the programming I gave him, can we say that the robot ever had the choice' to make those decisions? After all, it was my decision for him to do them before he was even born.

We say that robots do not have free will, because they were programmed to do what they do.

Think then of a man that is programmed to do and react exactly how his creator has done?

We should also say that the man has no free will.

We are all but Kermit the Frogs
We are all but Kermit the Frogs

Common Arguments

The following are common responses I am greeted with when explaining the impossibility of free will and an omniscient and omnipotent God.

Complexity
"A robot can be programmed with a certain amount of information to function, but its nature is limited to the amount given.

Human's have DNA which is a complex code system for human life to function. This information far exceeds the complexity and intelligence of man; therefore, the source exceeds that of human technology (i.e. robots)."

So here it is stated that the difference between robots and humans is that of complexity. But why would that have any weight on free will? What difference does it make how complex we are? If we built a robot that is more complex than a human, would he be automatically entitled to free will?

And to that point, where in the level of complexity do we say "at this point of complexity, this being has free will and below that, it doesn't".


Awareness

"It is simple really. God creates *sentient* beings who are aware of who created them. God knows the consequences of going against His nature because He already communicated the consequences to the first human beings that He created that this would happen."

"A human technological machine does not know that its life is coming to a permanent end because it is just made to encode and decode a data stream. No matter how loud you yell at it, it will never have the ability of cognizance."

So here you say that it is also because of awareness. It might be important to first tell you that we have already created robots with "cognizance" as I understand it. Robots with the ability to learn from their mistakes and store that information as knowledge for future use.

Then I would argue that awareness has nothing to do with free will. If a toaster knew that we created it, it would still have no choice over it's functional capability. To that point, atheists do not believe they were created by a God, so are they robots? Of course not.

Unless of course you mean the ability to simply think about your existence, realise that you came from your parents etc. At which point I would argue that this awareness and thinking ability is still just a matter of programming, because after all, God programmed us with the ability to think and be aware. So being aware of something doesn't stop the fact that all of your actions, including the act of being aware of something, were made as a result of your creator.

Also to that point, is that because humans are capable of thinking, and are just a series of mechanical processes, we can conclude that it is possible to replicate in a robot, at which point we would still call it a robot, and still say that it has no free will because all of it's actions were as a result of our decisions.

As for the awareness of the end of your life, that is easily programable into a robot with our current technology. All you would need to do is have a stimulus "high edge" and an emotional response "sadness/fear" and you would have the same (simplified but nevertheless the same) result as when a human sees a high edge and gets a negative emotion. We are but stimulus-reaction creatures too, after all.

(Note: the following is not an argument to show that we have free will, but it was used as one, although all it simply does it state something)

"God cannot go against His nature, but we have been given the ability of free-will to decide to choose life beyond this one"

But where is my free will? If God created my ancestors in a way that they would give birth to me, so that I would never buy into religion or morality, when did I ever have the choice of leading a righteous life? I didn't. If I was actively created as a result of my ancestors being actively created, then I am nothing but a robot, carrying out what my programming tells me to do.


To Sum Up

Complexity
My argument to complexity is that it has no relevance to free will: we would then be complex robots relative to the robots we can create now, in 1000 years we will probably be able to create humans or more complex robots, so we would be less complex robots than the ones we would be creating ourselves.

At no point does the sheer complexity of how we were made at all have any weight on whether or not we were programmed. Because, if we were programmed complexly or not, we would still by definition be robots and have no free will. As you say we now just " made to encode and decode a data stream", whatever stimulus we are given, we react according to our internal programming.

Awareness of your creator
My argument to awareness is that it also has no relevance to free will because that awareness is itself part of our programming, and could be replicated in more complex robots in the future, because we ourselves function on mechanics that biology is letting us know more and more about every day. Even if a robot knew who it was and who created it, it would still have no choice over what it does because it was our programming that makes it do what it does. We would have programmed the robots with the ability of awareness Just like God did with humans.

Awareness of Death
And being aware of the end your life is just a stimulus-reaction process just like humans use and can be programmed into a robot just like it was programmed into us. Even that ability to fear death is part of our programming by God, and so we really have no choice or upper hand over simpler robots, we were just made more complexly.

Conclusion

To conclude, all of these points are about the complexity of human mechanics, but they are still just about our mechanics. Arguing that we have free will because we are more complex than other robots is like arguing that a computer has free will because it can do functions that a toaster can't.

If we were actively programmed by someone, what makes us different from any other robot other than the person who programmed us being able to do something more complex?

The complexity of our robots are drastically increasing all of the time, they are capable of learning, thinking and being aware - but we would never say that they have free will when we built them to do what they do.

So it is wrong to say that because humans are capable of thinking and learning and being aware that they have free will.

Biblical Examples

A great online writer Rhonda D Jackson kindly came up with three excellent Biblical examples of God causing people to do things and then punishing them for it.

  1. "He hardens Pharaoh's heart then punishes him for being hard-hearted."
  2. "Both God and Satan moved King David to run a census, then God kills the 70,000 people who participated in it."
  3. "As for Adam, he was created without the faculty to know good and evil [and yet was thrown out of the Garden of Eden]"

A Casual Plea

If you have anything to add, conflict or elaborate upon, please do comment below. I am not saying that this hub is 100% factual, this is a representation of the knowledge I currently possess and the way I am analysing this topic. It is of course possible that it is completely wrong and I am very willing to hear any counter-ideas that suggest so.

Do you believe that if humans were created by an omnipotent (all powerful) and omniscient (all knowing) God, then they still maintain a degree of autonomy (free will)?

See results

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • profile image

      created without permision 4 years ago

      If humans have free will why wasn't it our choice to be created or be apart of this evolution in the first place, its like humans was put here with out our consent rather we was born in a vessel didn't our soul have a choice to be put in a body? Didn't our soul have a choice to rather it wanted to even be apart of this evolution? I know sometimes I feel like if there is a creator why didn't it ask me if I wanted to be created or should the creator already know if a soul wants to be created or not.

    • profile image

      AntonOfTheNorth 5 years ago

      Hi philanthropy,

      I'd have jumped in much earlier, but circumstances have kept me out of hubs for awhile.

      Know: "to understand from experience or attainment" (online Dictionary)

      "to perceive directly" Mirriam Webster online

      I only offer these as 'know' implies direct knowledge.

      is it rational to believe that one can have direct knowledge of that which has yet to occur?

      Predictive ability due to previous knowledge is not the same as knowledge.

      If I have experience of everything (required for your definition of omnipotence if we use my definition of 'know'), then everything has already occurred.

      And our existence is merely a long, complicated movie.

      How would anyone in a movie know the difference?

      cheers

    • Rhonda D Johnson profile image

      Rhonda D Johnson 5 years ago from Somewhere over the rainbow

      I hope this thread is still open because it is a great topic and handled quite well. Here is my $.02:

      Christians may argue for free will but when I look in the Bible, I don't actually find any support for it. The biblical god often makes people do things and then punishes them for doing it. He hardens Pharaoh's heart then punishes him for being hard-hearted. Both God and Satan moved King David to run a census, then God kills the 70,000 people who participated in it. As for Adam, he was created without the faculty to know good and evil so there goes the awareness argument right here.

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 5 years ago from London

      Agreed Extragalaxial :) My other article "6 reasons religion is dying" covers just that.

    • profile image

      extragalaxial 5 years ago

      I support the fact that if we assume God to be Omniscient then that means He knows everything in the past, present and future and therefore our free wills are compromised. God in this state together with His other Omnies, like Omnipresent, Omnipotent etc.. is pathetic.

    • Pcunix profile image

      Tony Lawrence 5 years ago from SE MA

      Well, you may think it is, but we know better. All the omni-junk is illogical and your tortured attempts to explain that away show us where your logical abilities end. Let it go - be happy. Nobody cares that you don't get it. You and all the rest of the magical thinkers are the majority - pat yourself on the back, because you have plenty of company.

    • lone77star profile image

      Rod Martin Jr 5 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      @Pcunix, my logic is alive and well. I built a software engineering career on it, graduating summa cum laude. I did have a bit of a tough time with 3D matrix math, but finally licked it and put out my 3D astronomy software.

      Obviously, you don't understand my point. But you can wallow in your oblivion and think it's logic.

      @Philan, stick with your "robot" gag. You seem quite comfortable with it.

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 5 years ago from London

      @Lone77Star,

      ("you're making the argument messy with your quibbling over definitions. Rarely, if ever, do words portray "truth" about anything.")

      Well, I was under the impression that when people communicate they use the dictionary definitions of words so that they can refer to something if they don't know the definitions of words.

      "omniscience" is the state of "knowing everything" in the dictionary. This is the definition that I use(d). It's not my own definition, I'm not that creative.

      Please let me know in the future that you wish to make new definitions for words and then make an argument with them. For the sake of the flow of the conversation and other hubbers who wish to understand what we're talking about.

      ("You think your definition is better?")

      Well my definition is that of the authority that dictates the definitions of words, so I guess so :S

      (I would argue that God can, so He has present-time omniscience. I would also say that He has past omniscience, too.)

      Well, that's a very interesting take on things indeed, but do you have anything to suggest this is the case? For instance, in the Bible it says:

      "this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death." (Acts 2:23)

      and:

      "For the Lord is a God of knowledge, And with Him actions are weighed" (1 Sam. 2:3)

      So It would seem that God has the power of foreknowledge. You yourself say "God also knows that certain things will happen in the future" so he is also the God of future knowledge?

      ("1) You say that this is a point I'm arguing? No, I think you're making a new point in response to mine")

      Oh I meant it in the sense of "the points you are to against in your response are" in the sense of "these are my points so please argue them" not in the sense of "these are the points you are supporting". That was my fault for not being clear, sorry.

      ("The ability to "know" all of those predetermined paths")

      Yes well, I can only assume you are using your own definition of "predetermined" too, because the dictionary version would tell you that something isn't predetermined if it can change :L

      " Immortal spirit is not subject to those laws, but can be affected by them through emotional attachments to things which are so affected." I don't know what on earth you are talking about here with "immortal spirit" and "souls". Human behaviour is very predictable, it is based on the stimuli that we have experienced beforehand that we make our decisions now.

      This concept of "soul" and "immortal spirit" if at all in existence would be in the same situation as what you deem to be the brain and its responses to "physical reality".

      That is to say, since God created our souls and how souls work, its once again his will that they work the way they do, eliminating our free will once more. This will go for anything that God creates of course, because it would be his will that his creation worked the way he wanted it to, responded the way he wanted to and decided the way he wanted to. Robots.

      Philanthropy,

    • Pcunix profile image

      Tony Lawrence 5 years ago from SE MA

      Obviously you don't understand the issues, lone77star. That's OK - be happy in your beliefs and leave the logic stuff to those of us who do understand it.

    • lone77star profile image

      Rod Martin Jr 5 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      If the pcunix-thing moves its computer mouse, does it affect my free will? Does it diminish its own free will?

      I think the answer is painfully obvious.

    • lone77star profile image

      Rod Martin Jr 5 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      @Philanthropy2012, you're making the argument messy with your quibbling over definitions. Rarely, if ever, do words portray "truth" about anything. If you want to stick to your definition, then I would have to say we have nothing to talk about. I hope you're more open to discussion than that.

      Yes, nothing could fulfill your definition of omniscience.

      You can define "omniscience" one way, and I can define it another way. So? What have you proved. You think your definition is better? What does it solve if it does not describe the situation we are discussing? I'd say that nothing is solved by such an approach, and that you've boxed yourself into a corner. I argue that your definition does not fit the topic at hand.

      My definition of omniscience allows that someone could know everything as it exists now. Wow! Can you do that? I would argue that God can, so He has present-time omniscience. I would also say that He has past omniscience, too.

      1) You say that this is a point I'm arguing? No, I think you're making a new point in response to mine. And I'm happy to discuss your point.

      If the only ingredient of potential change is the free will we enjoy, then everything else that is not affected by that "free will" would continue in its predetermined path. The ability to "know" all of those predetermined paths certainly is another form of omniscience by my definition. Also, the ability to know the possible effects of someone changing their mind (free will) is another form of omniscience, by my definition. This is how "omniscience" (as I define it) and "free will" are not mutually exclusive.

      These children of God are, for lack of a better word, "baby gods." Of course, created in God's image, they would have the ability to create and would have God's free will. When we bit into the forbidden fruit, we trapped ourselves in physical continuity--depending on its effects for our ability to see. This is the darkness mentioned in the Bible. Our spiritual ability to see is the "light" which is its opposite.

      2) Again, this is not a point I'm making (as you suggest). It seems to be your misunderstanding of my own viewpoint.

      God created all of physical reality, so our neurological responses are part of that reality. If we had no soul (true spiritual self), then those neurons would behave in a predictable way with a certain degree of predictability (by our own science) and subject to God's omniscience.

      I don't pretend to know exactly how it all works, but I suspect that the only variable is that of the ability of the true self (the immortal spirit, within) to make a change -- to affect the neurons in a uniquely new direction. That's free will. The brain and ego are part of physical reality and are subject to its laws of action-reaction. Immortal spirit is not subject to those laws, but can be affected by them through emotional attachments to things which are so affected.

      That's my current take on things.

    • Pcunix profile image

      Tony Lawrence 5 years ago from SE MA

      And if the god-thing can stick in its finger to change things, where is the free will then - for us and it?

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 5 years ago from London

      "God has omniscience in what is, but only in what will be if we don't implement change."

      That I would argue, by definition, is not omniscience.

      In regards to the future, I would say that you either know something, or you don't. If there's the chance that you will be wrong then you never knew it. The word used would be "I predict" or "I suggest" that this will happen.

      "Our behavior will continue to move along its current vector unless we decide to change that behavior. That's free will" But our choices are dependent on our programming, which was determined by God. Any choice that we make was determined by his programming and his will alone.

      Just like in my robot analogy shows.

      So the two points you are arguing (and I only clarify because this topic can get messy for me, not because I doubt your intelligence, it would really help if you number your response too):

      1. You cannot say you "know" something in the future, when it is liable to change. That would be a prediction or a guess. These words leave room for being wrong. Knowing does not.

      2. Any decisions made by us are because we react and decide in a particular way =) that way is decided by our neurological programming =) God made our neurological programming.

      Thank you,

      Philanthropy,

      ------ =) are what I use as arrows ----- (they're not out of place smiley faces)

    • lone77star profile image

      Rod Martin Jr 5 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      @Philanthropy2012, an interesting, but somewhat flawed analysis of this age-old question. However, I love your passion for the subject. You dig deep for answers. That makes your discussion considerably more potent than many I've seen.

      Having been a computer scientist and software engineer for nearly 20 years, I can understand the programming analogy, but creation goes beyond the simple continuity-based relationships we find in physical reality.

      Omniscience does not necessarily equate to absolute control. Omniscience is not the opposite of free will, either. God can know everything that's going on right now; that's omniscience. He can know what will happen if people don't change their minds. And there's the flaw in your argument. God has omniscience in what is, but only in what will be if we don't implement change.

      Everything in physical reality has "inertia." This is part of the continuity of physical reality. A hurtling meteoroid will continue to move in its current vector unless acted upon by an external force. Our behavior will continue to move along its current vector unless we decide to change that behavior. That's free will.

      God also knows that certain things will happen in the future (prophecy) because, even though we have free will, He has the power to make certain things happen -- like the Jewish Holocaust which led to the re-establishment of Israel.... Like the "great star" named "wormwood" which spread pestilence over 1/3 of the planet -- 1986, in the form of Chernobyl ("wormwood" in Ukrainian). And it seems the "mark of the beast," mentioned in Revelation, will be the embedded microchip we will all be required to wear in order to deal with commerce (buy bread or gasoline). That will be near future, according to an Aaron Russo interview and an NBC news broadcast. These were prophesied nearly 2000 years ago.

      But more important than all of this is the fact that God wants to rescue his trapped children. I'm not talking about Homo sapiens bodies. I'm talking about the children created in His image: the non-physical, spiritual and immortal sources of creation who are dead asleep within each of us. That's what's at stake. The "everlasting life" of which Yehoshua of Nazareth spoke is not immortal Homo sapiens bodies; it is a reawakening of the true, immortal spiritual self, within.

      The main point of free will is the very necessary element in our rescue which is our decision to want to be rescued. Without that, we will remain within physical continuity... even long after this planet has been consumed by our sun when it goes red giant.

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 5 years ago from London

      Faceless, it's only BS if the God cannot intervene in our lives, otherwise what's so wrong about saying "Hey, you, if you can help me and you're not doing much else, why don't you?"

      Knowing everything? Well that would mean you're constantly reminiscing, in a way, it would instantly end all existence because everything has already happened if you have already seen everything happen! Nothing new will happen because inside that God's mind, it already all has happened.

      After that it's a hall of mirrors with the god inside god's head knowing everything and the god inside that knowing everything etc etc.

      Actually that would make a great hub! Thanks :D

      And matter is an illusion?

    • Faceless39 profile image

      Faceless39 5 years ago from The North Woods, USA

      People make the mistake of blaming God or praising God for whatever's going on in their lives. It's BS; we have choices, we have karma, and we have repercussions based on universal laws.

      As for whether or not God knows all, I'm sure it's possible. If that's possible, then ignoring or erasing that ability is also probably possible. As things go, we lead a false existence (ie matter is an illusion), and are about the lowest on God's list of souls to notice.

      As for monotheism, I'm not particularly "religious" but do believe in the personality of godhead.

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 5 years ago from London

      @Faceless39,

      Hey thanks for reading and commenting :)

      This hub was just to tackle my "if we were willingly created by a God who already knew what we would do, before we did it, it was his choice" argument.

      If your personal belief doesn't include a deity (God I think refers to the monotheistic god?)under this description then the hub won't apply :)

      Though what you describe as far as I know is not at all religion-related or (monotheistic) God but a creator or a deity who made the laws of the universe and matter? At which point yeah, we would have free will. Unless the god was omniscient.

      Thanks,

      Philanthropy :)

    • Faceless39 profile image

      Faceless39 5 years ago from The North Woods, USA

      You're assuming God did not just set the laws into motion, but is actively working behind the scenes. My belief and understanding is that once laws are set in motion, they work on their own, and no further oversight is needed. Therefore, it's our choice to make "right" or "wrong" decisions; to love; to hate; to make mistakes: the laws of karma (etc.) are set up for any choices we might make. We are not programmed robots. We have free thoughts, free will, and free spirits, and must come to love God of our own free will, else it's completely meaningless and hollow.

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 5 years ago from London

      But you understand the concept that he programmed us to snub God or to embrace God? So it's not our choice to do it, it's his?

    • Faceless39 profile image

      Faceless39 5 years ago from The North Woods, USA

      I understand your argument, yet don't agree with it. Love is only truly love if it is not demanded, if it is given freely. Hence, free will and the ability to snub God (love) or to embrace God (love) as we see fit.

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 5 years ago from London

      Well it certainly isn't the first time that the great scientists, philosophers and masses of our time bought a concept that was founded on gaps :S They can't be blamed though, at least they had the decency not to/reluctancy to crack open people's heads to have a look at what might be going on..

      And it seems that natural phobia are a great counter argument against the proactive idea, if the subconscious is proactive, it must be constantly getting overridden by irrational fears.

    • profile image

      AKA Winston 5 years ago

      Philanthropy,

      A side curiosity to me is the reason humankind would hold so dearly to a concept seemingly initiated due to false conclusions based on ignorance. Dualism appears to be the progeny of the attempts to explain what at the time appeared intractable - wind and breath and the like.

      It is certainly no castigation to further assume that otherwise brilliant thinkers such as Descartes, et all, were only able to build further on what may well turn out to be a false premise.

      The cogent point on all this is a future determination of whether or not the subconscious is reactionay or proactive. So far, the evidence doesn't look good for the proactive assumption.

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 5 years ago from London

      @AKA,

      This topic is very interesting, a lot of studies like this are being done currently I believe, they've had a break through concerning some of the subconscious criteria we base decisions upon.

      It's that whole scenario of people liking apples more than pears, and pears more than strawberries, but not always liking apples more than strawberries.

      Apparently our subconscious decisions can change quite dramatically depending on our current needs, when thirsty we may prefer the arctic scenery to the desert one, simple theories like that, just takes someone to do the trials over and over.

      Unfortunately I can only cite a NewScientist page number and edition for that though, but the concept isn't much to argue.

      As Haynes himself is hinting at however, our subconscious is part of us, so any decision it makes might not be considered as against our free will, it is us after all. Our active conscience's free will is definitely limited by our physical capabilities too, try touching a burning stove without flinching (don't).

      As long as we were not created with design I would say that even if our subconscious is making our decisions we would still have free will, after all, it is still part of us that is making the decision.

      It would be interesting to see what they get by scanning the brains of those more complicated decisions.

      Thanks,

      Philanthropy

    • profile image

      AKA Winston 5 years ago

      There is evidentiary confirmation that free will may be illusory:

      "In the seven seconds before Haynes' test subjects chose to push a button, activity shifted in their frontopolar cortex, a brain region associated with high-level planning. Soon afterwards, activity moved to the parietal cortex, a region of sensory integration. Haynes' team monitored these shifting neural patterns using a functional MRI machine.

      Taken together, the patterns consistently predicted whether test subjects eventually pushed a button with their left or right hand -- a choice that, to them, felt like the outcome of conscious deliberation. For those accustomed to thinking of themselves as having free will, the implications are far more unsettling than learning about the physiological basis of other brain functions " source: http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008...

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 5 years ago from London

      Thanks BIllgaede, that's a very interesting way of explaining it :) It's good to collect many different analogies in case people won't understand, and I'm glad that some people do. Religious people find it hard to stomach it sometimes though.

    • billgaede profile image

      billgaede 5 years ago

      "We do not have free will if were created by an omniscient God."

      .

      If God knows everything we will do, it is because 'He' is watching the scenes in the Movie of the Heavens. This relegates us to cartoon characters. The future is consummated and becomes God's past. Bugs Bunny does not have more free will than his author is willing to give him. Bugs can only go through the motions of what the writer prescribed for him.

      .

      If God is just guessing, 'He' is not omniscient. God can guess just as wrong as the next guy.

      .

      And if God knows, but chooses not to, it doesn't change the first scenario at all. 'He' simply turns 'His' back and chooses not to watch the film, but the acting, the film, the editing, are already consummated. The movie is in the post production stage, being distributed to theaters.

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 5 years ago from London

      Thanks A Thousand Words :)

      The point about Adam & Eve is exactly my point for all humans. But it's simply than that.

      I use the same definition of free will in my arguments. Using definition one:

      "1) The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate"

      If we were created by a God who knew we were going to do something, it is fate that the something will happen. There is no escaping the end result. No choice.

      God created Adam knowing he would eat the apple.

      He created Lucifer knowing he would be evil.

      At which point can we say that it was not God's doing for letting any of the 2 events occur?

      Thanks for your interesting response and I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking about these topics hah.

    • A Thousand Words profile image

      A Thousand Words 5 years ago

      I had a discussion with my stepfather about the issue of free will, but my argument against it was somewhat different.

      I'll post two definitions of what free will literally means:

      1) The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion

      2) The power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies

      With this idea in mind of what free will is, my argument is as follows:

      When God (specifically the Western God) "created" us, He gave us two choices. And keep in mind that these two choices were inscribed into the fabric of reality that He created, whether or not he actually told Adam and Eve. The choices were:

      1) Always be obedient to me and you will continue to be with me and in my presence, everliving.

      2) Disobey me, and you will eventually die. (There are some Christians who believe in Hell and some who just believe that man will be cut off from god eternally, but not necessarily in "Hell" as we see it today)

      Now, if these were our choices, there is no free will. Free will, based on the above definitions, would look like this:

      1) Be obedient to me, worship me, etc. and you will be happy.

      2) Ignore me, disobey me, and concentrate more on everything around you and you will be happy.

      No special or dire consequences for either action. (Unconstrained by external agencies)

      So man, without any restraints, can literally choose to say "sure I'll follow you God," and "nah, I'd rather worry about other things," and there would be the same end result. That is true free will.

      (My stepfather suggested that the Christian/Western god could in fact be like the greek gods where their strength and continued power and existence comes from people worshipping and praying to them. This would actually be the only plausible reason for him to create a punishment for choosing to disobey him. And also the only reason to even create humans in the first place, when the angels were already praising Him in heaven and they had the ability to "choose" as well, Lucifer being a prime example of that. That, or he's a power hungry, egotistical tyrant that likes playing games with people's lives. Probably both.)

      Now, the question that I have for people is this. Did God have the right to punish Adam and Eve when He in fact gave them the ability to do what was "right" and what was "wrong?" They were created in His image, right? Is God, then capable of evil? Surely, if he created them with the ability to do wrong, and they are created in His image, than He can do wrong as well. Or did He really create people with a fault, and decide to play a little game that could potentially cause them to end up in Hell?

      And speaking of Hell, why would an omniscient God create Lucifer in the first place if He knew what he was going to do, and that he would become the Devil?

      Questions that people are either too afraid to answer, or the answers that they give make you scared of this religion. (I've heard some crazy things...)

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 5 years ago from London

      Thank you Emma :)

      And I agree Pcunix, something doesn't quite add up no matter which angle you look at a God with such characteristics.

      This isn't even considering how such a being might come into being, this is just what we are taking he is (as described)!

      It just goes to show back up the empiricist view that humans can be taught to believe anything.

      Philanthropy,

    • Pcunix profile image

      Tony Lawrence 5 years ago from SE MA

      Consider the poor omniscient, omnipotent god-thing. He CAN change whatever he likes, because he is omnipotent. But if he is really omniscient, he already knows what he will mess with and what he won't, so really he can't change anything - everything is frozen by his own omniscience.

      But then he foolishly gives free will to people. Oops, big mistake - now he not only has lost omniscience but can't interfere without destroying their free will.

      He becomes a complete impotent know-nothing. Oh, yeah: let's worship that!

    • emmaspeaks profile image

      emmaspeaks 5 years ago from Kansas City

      Very interesting hub. I think you explored every aspect quite thoroughly. I think it sums up nicely why god in unnecessary. Voted up!