Why is "robot" the only alternative to free will ?

Question

More than once I read statements in this section that are so black and white.
I just read this:
"There is evil, because God gave us free will. Would you rather have the alternative, that we are all walking robots with no choice?"

Why aren't there other alternatives? Like:
-free will, without the option of doing evil with it
-free will, but without being so easily offended
-free will, but without the ability to hate
-free will, but without knowledge of what violence is
etc, etc,etc

Since God can apparently create as He wishes,in my eyes there really is a long, long list of what God could have created, with still letting us have this free will thingy.

In my country, Holland, we also have pure freedom of speech. Only if it is abused to publicly discriminate or incite hate/violence, it's forbidden. That actually takes away nothing from the pure freedom...with free will, God could have done the same, right?

The last Ent Wife: you're welcome, but why don't you simply answer it then?

lol, ok, you answered now.And no, of course I disagree with mr. Manson. I also fail to see the relevance to this subject. I do believe, however, that even Mr. Manson deserved a fair punishment, like every human being. And with fair I mean: every punishment needs a part of foregivness and education in it.

Answer 1

"if you don't think of everything in black and white, you must agree with charles manson.... "

where do people come up with this stuff?

Answer 2

Well at least two of your options are not valid. You can't have free will without the option of doing evil or without the ability to hate since that would negate what free will is by definition- The ability to freely do what you want.

As for your other two, fear will without being so easily offended is possible people just have to choose it and free will without knowledge of violence should be fine since knowledge of anything is never a prerequisite for free will and choice. We make choices all the time without knowing everything.

You are dead wrong about your country having "pure" freedom of speech. People have freedom of speech as long as they don't say what has been specifically forbidden. That's is what freedom of speech is all about being able to say what you want. That being said. There isn't a country in the world that has pure freedom of speech. And you are wrong it takes a lot away from pure freedom. Government's always take away freedom from some people that's why we have them. True freedom means we would have to let people murder people. By denying them, we impinge on their freedom. Yes, God could have done that too but then we would not be trully free, which is why some people believe God allows murder and other atrocities to occur(Personally, I am an atheist but it is still a logically valid argument)

Answer 3

Markster,

The only time when free will does not come with the possibility of performing evil is when there is no LAW and consciousness of sin.

That effectively means ignorance.

Now, if you are knowledgeable between right and wrong, will you always be able to do only right? I'm sure nobody can because your FLESH will draw you to do wrong.

That's why, unless you put away the flesh, you cannot become holy.

You ask, why didn't God create people with free will and yet not able to sin. I assume this comes with knowledge of right and wrong. My question to you is, with free will comes responsibility. Do you think the kingdom which is to be perfect and NO SADNESS can allow the OCCASIONAL DEVIATION from goodness and let someone or some people do some heinous crime out of 'carelessness'? Surely not, if that is so, then earth would be heaven. Cos, that is exactly what is happening now.

The bible says only the perfect being lives forever. How can one be perfect unless there is a standard to which that perfect abides to?

Answer 4

"-free will, without the option of doing evil with it
-free will, but without being so easily offended
-free will, but without the ability to hate
-free will, but without knowledge of what violence is
etc, etc,etc"

all thse statemetns are contradictions, oxymorons that have imperfect meanings... like white chocolate, alone together, or almost done... these statements, while common, do not use the words at face value.

Free will without the option of doing evil is not freewill, we're restricted from half of the things that are humanly possible, by not being able to express ourselves in offensive art (like a ipiction of Angelina Jolee as the Virgin Mary), or talk back to our parents, or go against the wishes of our church and marry outside our faith... is that truly free will? People have the choice to do good or bad, without it, good and bad are meaningless, there will be nothing for us to compare one another to, and we'll have a society lost.

Free will without being offended? that's not freewill. Freewill invovles everyone having the right ot thier opinions an the right to express it, an even the right to seek out others who agree. I want to say that Jesus isn't always the answer, I want to tell people that Allah is misunerstood in the western world, and I want to tell people who think that Jesus is the best answer to any question that they're not always right and that people who hate Allah need to get have more human understanding. It's part of our humanity to have differing opinions, and to take away the freedom of disagreeing will revert us to automations with uniform opinions.


Without the ability to hate an commit violence, to take away that choice, is not freewill. It's a crime. The only way to take away violence is to lock a person in jail or cut off his arms and legs and clamp his mouth shut. Is it fair to do that to everyone? What's the difference between lobotimizing people and cutting off thier limbs?

The duality of man is his most prized quality, the ability to hate and love and the freedom to do both is a gift, not a curse.

Answer 5

I just don't think that's free will. You say "free will, without the option of doing evil with it". You are, in a sense, freely forcing someone to not do evil. "Freely forcing" is an oxymoron. It's like a square circle. You say "Since God can apparently create as He wishes". God can't do what is logically impossible. God can't create a square circle. He can't create dry water.
You may have laws in Holland but despite the laws, people still have free will but you don't have pure freedom of speech, not if you can go to jail for saying something that might be interpreted as hate speech. But you do have free will. You can make sure you speak your hate speech to personal friends who will not turn you in to the authorities. You can also just speak your hate speech openly and go to jail if necessary. Passing laws is one thing. Taking way free will is a totally different thing. You can pass all the laws you want and we don't lose our humaness. Take away our free will and we are just robots.

Answer 6

Isn't free will, a will where you can do whatever you want? If a person believes it is right to incite hatred or violence but as in Holland not allowed to then has he been stripped off his free will. Has this person then also been stripped from his pure freedom of speech?

When you love someone and they leave you but return back to you without you having to say anything, isn't that pure love? This is the free will which God gave us.

Answer 7

You have presented a house of cards. Your robot issue is summed up: "God could have done the same, right?"

First you presume there is a God and, second, what have you shown to prove your God hasn't done the same thing? You presume equality and righteousness of all people, especially those in Holland. As you well know, whether by biology or environmental causes, people are not equal. "Some pigs are more equal than others," Orwell said. You are confusing the concept of equal in the eyes of the law with possessing equal abilities. People simply are not equal in ability. Think of greater ability as a birthright from God. This is self evident. But not evident to you, therefore, you have disproven your own hypothesis! Isamov wrote of robots and his robots are not like your robots.

Answer 8

The term "robot" is simply argument by slogan. As far as I'm concerned, Satan would love robots to be bound to him. But then again, these are common Arminian beliefs, and you need to take them with a grain of salt because this theology will always raise questions like yours.

Calvinism puts free will in a completely different light, i.e. that of complete freedom to send ourselves to hell any way we like. We are all guilty from birth on, and in this state it takes a loving God to do the choosing. And, if God can do the choosing, then he can do so at any time he wishes, which lends itself very easily to the idea of predestination. In other words, God can love his own from before the foundations of the world, bring us to himself through the effectual calling of the Holy Spirit, save us, keep us, and bring us into eternal life. Eternity through eternity, we are his. Now, this makes for uncomfortable reading in the Bible ("What!? God gives us faith, we can't take it and make God hope for us to accept him???), because to the Arminian it gives God too much power. Sorry, I worship a God that does what he wants, and I look at this as every one of us robots for Satan except for a loving God who opens our eyes.

Answer 9

Yanno, I've been wondering that for a while! Even in my philosophy class (good riddance, don't have that anymore), the teacher never considered the idea that free will could include only good, or simply not having the option to do bad. I dunno, I'm as lost as you are ^^; sorry! I have a theory though, and that is that it's scary for people, to consider the idea that it's possible that thing's aren't black and white, and that it's possible that God could have created us without the ability to do bad stuff. Oh well, such is life, right?

Answer 10

I just love it when one of my answers prompts someone to write a question based on it. Thanks!!

Why can't we live in a world of gray, where everything is relative and nothing matters except your own interpretation of reality....


Follow that to it's logical conclusion, please.

Charles Manson said at his trial, "Who are you to judge me, I did what I thought was right."

If you think there is no black and white, no absolutely truth, no right and wrong nor good or evil, then you have to agree with Mr. Manson, don't you?

Oh, and just as an aside, do you happen to know what the suicide rates for your dear little country of Holland are?

Answer 11

Then it wouldn't be true freedom of choice. That would be like taking you to a buffett and saying you can have anything you want on the buffett, except for the mashed potatoes, chicken and tacos.