Free-will defense

[Bobby Lewis]

The free-will defense is used to explain why God can be all-loving, all-powerful, and still allow evil to exist. As I understand it, God desires for humans to love Him and each other. Love requires a choice, so He gives humans the ability to choose to love or withold love, even hate.

If the afterlife will be perfect, then humans will not be able to withold love. Hmans will not have free-will. Humans will be like robots which means that God will not accomplish what He intended.

[guacamole]

The free-will defense is used to explain why God can be all-loving, all-powerful, and still allow evil to exist. As I understand it, God desires for humans to love Him and each other. Love requires a choice, so He gives humans the ability to choose to love or withold love, even hate.

That is one part of the free-will defense. The second, and prehaps more sophisticated portion, indicates that good and evil require free moral choice. If anyone is to be good or evil they do so by free moral choice. God is good, therefore there must be free moral choice.

If the afterlife will be perfect, then humans will not be able to withold love. Hmans will not have free-will. Humans will be like robots which means that God will not accomplish what He intended.

That is the popular understanding of the afterlife by many. I think that is wrong. If people in heaven are to be good, they logically they will have free moral choice. The use of the word "perfect" here, by both skeptics and true believers, is problematic in the way that definitions of divine attributes are problematic in that they usually don't allow for logical qualification:

If the afterlife will be perfect (as perfect as logically possible), then residents will be good. If they are good they will have free moral choice. That means humans will not be like robots and that God will have accomplished what he intended.

fwiw
guaca.

[mbd30]

That is the popular understanding of the afterlife by many. I think that is wrong. If people in heaven are to be good, they logically they will have free moral choice. The use of the word "perfect" here, by both skeptics and true believers, is problematic in the way that definitions of divine attributes are problematic in that they usually don't allow for logical qualification:

If the afterlife will be perfect (as perfect as logically possible), then residents will be good. If they are good they will have free moral choice. That means humans will not be like robots and that God will have accomplished what he intended.

fwiw
guaca.

So will another "fall" be possible in heaven?

[guacamole]

So will another "fall" be possible in heaven?

Why not?

[Philosophickle]

So will another "fall" be possible in heaven?

It may be that it is possible, but that God in his foreknowledge knows that it is the case it doesn't happen.

[themuzicman]

The free-will defense is used to explain why God can be all-loving, all-powerful, and still allow evil to exist. As I understand it, God desires for humans to love Him and each other. Love requires a choice, so He gives humans the ability to choose to love or withold love, even hate.

If the afterlife will be perfect, then humans will not be able to withold love. Hmans will not have free-will. Humans will be like robots which means that God will not accomplish what He intended.

That's not entirely accurate. Since we have chosen to receive salvation, we have chosen to engage in a loving relationship with God, fulfilling the free will requirement.

Michael

[element771]

I guess the real question is whether our behavior will be perfect in heaven. I suspect that being bathed in God's perfection would make you want to choose to do his will.

[themuzicman]

I suspect, without the effects and curse of the fall and without the influence of a deceiver, that we'll be just fine.

[ENeGMA]

That is one part of the free-will defense. The second, and prehaps more sophisticated portion, indicates that good and evil require free moral choice. If anyone is to be good or evil they do so by free moral choice. God is good, therefore there must be free moral choice.

Does God have "free moral choice" in roughly the same sense humans supposedly do?

I think a lot of Christians reject that notion, or at least sidestep by saying it's just part of God's nature to be good.

But if God can have the kind of freedom necessary for moral solvency (and he must, by definition, if he's to be regard as 'good') while at the same having it as part of his nature that he can't (or won't) in fact ever do anything evil, then it seems humans could just as easily occupy that ground.

That is the popular understanding of the afterlife by many. I think that is wrong. If people in heaven are to be good, they logically they will have free moral choice. The use of the word "perfect" here, by both skeptics and true believers, is problematic in the way that definitions of divine attributes are problematic in that they usually don't allow for logical qualification:

If the afterlife will be perfect (as perfect as logically possible), then residents will be good. If they are good they will have free moral choice. That means humans will not be like robots and that God will have accomplished what he intended.

fwiw
guaca.

How can humans be free and yet always do good?

Why can't humans be free and yet always do good here and now?

What changes between heaven and earth? That's the operant point.

[ENeGMA]

It may be that it is possible, but that God in his foreknowledge knows that it is the case it doesn't happen.

Of course, he knew that in the first fall as well.

But naturally he did nothing to stop it.

Who's to say he won't just let it happen again? I mean, once everyone is in heaven it'll be roughly analogous to how it was before the fall -- right? Maybe this is an infinite cycle. Perfection and fall, perfection and fall, each group of beings thinking THEY'LL be the ones to put things right and live happily for all eternity.

That's actually a lot more poetic...

[ENeGMA]

I suspect, without the effects and curse of the fall and without the influence of a deceiver, that we'll be just fine.

But obviously the fall occurred prior to the effects of the fall and if a deceiver could enter THAT world then surely he could do the same again.

And given an infinite amount of time, anything that can happen will.

[Matt the Bat]

I suspect, without the effects and curse of the fall and without the influence of a deceiver, that we'll be just fine.

My main problem with this is that Satan rebelled against God without the influence of any pre-existing sin nature, and so did the angels. The fact is if we are imperfect in heaven then we're wasting our time with God on this earth, because it's impossible in that case to be able to live eternally without eventually falling away. In other words, we might all end up in hell at some point in our afterlives.

But obviously the fall occurred prior to the effects of the fall and if a deceiver could enter THAT world then surely he could do the same again.

And given an infinite amount of time, anything that can happen will.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

[John Goddard]

The free-will defense is used to explain why God can be all-loving, all-powerful, and still allow evil to exist. As I understand it, God desires for humans to love Him and each other. Love requires a choice, so He gives humans the ability to choose to love or withold love, even hate.

If the afterlife will be perfect, then humans will not be able to withold love. Hmans will not have free-will. Humans will be like robots which means that God will not accomplish what He intended.

If you pass the free will test here God accomplishes what He wanted.

In Heaven evil is destroyed, that's our reward for passing the test. You aren't a robot, you just don't have evil as a choice anymore.

[Matt the Bat]

If you pass the free will test here God accomplishes what He wanted.

In Heaven evil is destroyed, that's our reward for passing the test. You aren't a robot, you just don't have evil as a choice anymore.

One theory is that Satan was more willing to take a risk against God because he had no concept or foreknowledge of what God's exact punishment for his rebellion would be like. Humans, however, are informed of why he was kicked out of heaven and estranged from God, and are given a chance to recieve him here before being rewarded with heaven as a result of our devotion. The problem with this theory however is that God could've continued creating in heaven and reminded those still in heaven who remained faithful of Satan's fate for rebellion without having to put his creations on another realm first. And you'd think if that is indeed the reason God did this with humans, they why not the other creations as well? Does he really have foreknowledge?

[John Goddard]

One theory is that Satan was more willing to take a risk against God because he had no concept or foreknowledge of what God's exact punishment for his rebellion would be like. Humans, however, are informed of why he was kicked out of heaven and estranged from God, and are given a chance to recieve him here before being rewarded with heaven as a result of our devotion. The problem with this theory however is that God could've continued creating in heaven and reminded those still in heaven who remained faithful of Satan's fate for rebellion without having to put his creations on another realm first. And you'd think if that is indeed the reason God did this with humans, they why not the other creations as well? Does he really have foreknowledge?

I just think Satan was always intended to be the alternative to God, to give humans a way to exercise and test free will, rather than create us perfectly. It allows us the human experience and to grow, playing a part in the creative process.

Much like it might be more fulfilling to plant a seed to nurture and watch grow, even though it is more work than buying a fully-grown tree.