Argument of Free Will

Forums: Philosophy, Free Will, Philosophy Of Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

What would be a valid argument for the idea that if God knows someone is going to cause great harm, then he should restrict that person's freedom to prevent great harm?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 0 • Views: 3,097 • Replies: 36

No top replies

@barnebyj,

barnebyj wrote:

What would be a valid argument for the idea that if God knows someone is going to cause great harm, then he should restrict that person's freedom to prevent great harm?

If a policeman sees someone about to take a shot at some person and kill him, what is a good argument that he should restrict that person's freedom to prevent great harm?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

That's more of an analogy, I need an actual argument with premises.

2 Replies

@barnebyj,

...no its not...its the rightful answer...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

An argument cannot be a question, each premise has to state a specific point that relates to the previous premise and results in a conclusion. The conclusion being the idea that I originally posted.

0 Replies

@barnebyj,

Hitler caused great harm, but without him we wouldn't have jetpower, advanced areodynamic understanding, advanced radar navigation, sonar, atomic power, free ways, computer ..etc ..etc.

Not that it was his inventions, but caused the alliance to invent things at any cost to wage war against him.

Sometimes we have to be cynical and sacrifice to do good, and those who think they do good, do evil in their ignorence and naivity. Just look at parents who spoil their children rotten in the naive belive that they do good, often children end up fat getting diabetes, getting bullied in school, and can't take care of themselves in life because they were never taught how.
Many chatholic children home never taught the kids how the real world was like, and being locked up in a children home doesn't teach you anything, thus these kids were ignorent when released to the real world, and was subject to scams and misery.

Good and bad are very subjective and relative terms, usually spoken out of ignorence.

1 Reply

@HexHammer,

But what you're saying is that parents spoiling their children is similar to God letting his children (humanity) suffer when technically he can prevent it (being omnipotent) and wanting to prevent it (being all loving).

1 Reply

@barnebyj,

barnebyj wrote:

But what you're saying is that parents spoiling their children is similar to God letting his children (humanity) suffer when technically he can prevent it (being omnipotent) and wanting to prevent it (being all loving).

Rubbish, if you should guard humans for 8000 years, wouldn't grow bored of saving them for every little minescule thing, when they are strong enough to survive on their own? Humans are still around ..think!

1 Reply

@barnebyj,

barnebyj wrote:

What would be a valid argument for the idea that if God knows someone is going to cause great harm, then he should restrict that person's freedom to prevent great harm?

Are you assuming that you and your god agree on what is considered "great harm"?

1 Reply

@HexHammer,

But since God is not human he's not supposed to get bored. If a man decides to set a house on fire and a baby is burned to death, by Western understanding of God (omnipotent, omniscient, all loving) He should have prevented the man from setting the house in the first place in order to prevent the baby from being burned to death.

1 Reply

@thack45,

unnecessary suffering

1 Reply

@barnebyj,

And you're quite sure that your god would say the same?

1 Reply

@thack45,

it's not really my God, it's the Western understanding of God

1 Reply

@barnebyj,

barnebyj wrote:

But since God is not human he's not supposed to get bored. If a man decides to set a house on fire and a baby is burned to death, by Western understanding of God (omnipotent, omniscient, all loving) He should have prevented the man from setting the house in the first place in order to prevent the baby from being burned to death.

What you can't realize is that you want him to be a slave/servant/custode of humans, when he is a God that should be freed of such behaviour, we ate of the apple of wisdom, and knew good from evil as God did, so why would God come and do what we can and should do ourselves? If we couldn't do anything, we wouldn't get any experience, we couldn't write laws, morals and ethics.
We have a very evolved system, only because of our experience. You are too obsessed with everything being 100% fairytale idealistic, when the optimal is much lower, and things still works out. It would be as obsessive as demanding that we never fight in relationship, that we could never misunderstand eachother, that we can't have a free will.

At the tower of Bable, he struc man with different tounges, because diversity is good. With diversity we can invent different things that will inspire eachother, that we can build upon.

2 Replies

@barnebyj,

Very well. Then I'd ask the same question about this understood god.

0 Replies

@HexHammer,

Virtues are only good because they allow us to cope with suffering, why would God want us to suffer just for the sake of obtaining virtues? Most would agree that it's better to not have virtues than have suffering.

1 Reply

@HexHammer,

HexHammer wrote:

At the tower of Bable, he struc man with different tounges, because diversity is good. With diversity we can invent different things that will inspire eachother, that we can build upon.

Apologies for the non sequitur -- Y'know, i can't presently remember having heard the "Tower of Babel" myth reinterpreted quite that way before. Its nicely done, and i'll have to take it into account the next time i'm moved to think about it.

1 Reply

@barnebyj,

barnebyj wrote:

Virtues are only good because they allow us to cope with suffering, why would God want us to suffer just for the sake of obtaining virtues? Most would agree that it's better to not have virtues than have suffering.

There are suffering because of poor leadership, change the leadership and it's philosophy, thus things will prosper.
In the western we don't have much suffering, we don't have great famines, we don't have great outburst of illnesses, and those outbreaks we have we invent cures for. So it all comes down to the kind of goverment and it's philosophy.

You seem obsessed with God HAS to do the job, when we can do it ourselves, that is foolishness. God drive my car, God give me a billion $, God give me lots of cheap ass hoes, God give me a good TV channel, God give me a good computer game, God give me a Mercedes Benz ..anything less is suffering for me, I'm drowning in selfpity, I'm too lazy to help out my fellow man, I want YOU to do it for me!

....................idiot?

0 Replies

@barnebyj,

barnebyj wrote:

That's more of an analogy, I need an actual argument with premises.

The analogy is an argument to show the absurdity of the idea that in order to preserve someone's freedom he ought not to be prevented from doing harm. If it is absurd for a policeman to allow a murder in order to allow the murderer to preserve his free will, it is just as absurd for God to allow someone to do harm to preserve that person's free will.

One way of formalizing the argument would be:

1. If it is proper for God to allow a someone to do harm to another in order to preserve his free will, then it is proper for a policeman to do the same thing.
2. But it is not proper for a policeman to allow a murder to murder in order to preserve the murderer's free will.

Therefore, 3, it is not proper for God to allow someone to do harm in order to preserve that person's free will.

The argument is valid by the inference rule, modus tollens. And the premises are true. Therefore, the argument is sound, and therefore the conclusion is is true.

This should be what you want.

2 Replies

@Razzleg,

That was lovely...

0 Replies

Argument of Free Will

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know