DiscussMormonism.com

I don't understand the purpose of free will. One of the reasons people often give on this forum for not believing in God is that the could not believe that a just and loving God would allow so many people to live short, pointless lives full of suffering that most in the Western world could not fathom. The reason for this I most often hear from believers is that God cannot help these people because if God were to reveal himself to these people, and take a direct action in their lives, He would be taking away their free will.


Ok.

What about all the Latter Day Saints who know for certain that there is a God, because he communicates with them, comforts them, directs their lives? What about God appearing bodily to Joseph Smith? Isn't that interfering with their free will? The response I usually get to this is that these people have surrendered their free will to God, and they seek only to do His will.

Ok.

So we are given free will, just so we can give it back. What is the point of this? Why is free will such an important thing, if its ultimate purpose is to be given up? Why is that more important than preventing the suffering around the world?

These are good questions.

The problem I see is that we can't even be sure ANYONE has "free will" to begin with. I know for certain that many, many people do not have any kind of agency or "free will."

So, claiming free will for the reason god stands by and let's babies get raped and people starve to death is just gross.

just me wrote:These are good questions.

The problem I see is that we can't even be sure ANYONE has "free will" to begin with. I know for certain that many, many people do not have any kind of agency or "free will."

So, claiming free will for the reason god stands by and let's babies get raped and people starve to death is just gross.

I don't think humans have the freedom of choice like we envision it. There are so many factors we encounter every day that determine our outlook on any given situation, to say nothing of genetics, that I really question how much freedom of choice we have.

Molok wrote:

just me wrote:These are good questions.

The problem I see is that we can't even be sure ANYONE has "free will" to begin with. I know for certain that many, many people do not have any kind of agency or "free will."

So, claiming free will for the reason god stands by and let's babies get raped and people starve to death is just gross.

I don't think humans have the freedom of choice like we envision it. There are so many factors we encounter every day that determine our outlook on any given situation, to say nothing of genetics, that I really question how much freedom of choice we have.

I agree. I also believe that if relativity is true, that means the future is already written and we can not alter it.

Molok wrote:I don't understand the purpose of free will. One of the reasons people often give on this forum for not believing in God is that the could not believe that a just and loving God would allow so many people to live short, pointless lives full of suffering that most in the Western world could not fathom. The reason for this I most often hear from believers is that God cannot help these people because if God were to reveal himself to these people, and take a direct action in their lives, He would be taking away their free will.


Ok.

What about all the Latter Day Saints who know for certain that there is a God, because he communicates with them, comforts them, directs their lives? What about God appearing bodily to Joseph Smith? Isn't that interfering with their free will? The response I usually get to this is that these people have surrendered their free will to God, and they seek only to do His will.

Ok.

So we are given free will, just so we can give it back. What is the point of this? Why is free will such an important thing, if its ultimate purpose is to be given up? Why is that more important than preventing the suffering around the world?

It's an ignorant view of free will(if it exists). It's basically saying the more information you have the less freedom of choice you have.

Molok wrote:I don't understand the purpose of free will. One of the reasons people often give on this forum for not believing in God is that the could not believe that a just and loving God would allow so many people to live short, pointless lives full of suffering that most in the Western world could not fathom. The reason for this I most often hear from believers is that God cannot help these people because if God were to reveal himself to these people, and take a direct action in their lives, He would be taking away their free will.


Ok.

What about all the Latter Day Saints who know for certain that there is a God, because he communicates with them, comforts them, directs their lives? What about God appearing bodily to Joseph Smith? Isn't that interfering with their free will? The response I usually get to this is that these people have surrendered their free will to God, and they seek only to do His will.

Ok.

So we are given free will, just so we can give it back. What is the point of this? Why is free will such an important thing, if its ultimate purpose is to be given up? Why is that more important than preventing the suffering around the world?

They have not surrendered their will...simply made choices in accordance with His will.
When you "agree" with someone you are not surrendering.

I think you may be confusing one's self with one's will.

The important notion to realize is that with the ability, a supernatural ability, to actually "choose otherwise" one must accept that there is no self at all. That there is no individuality, there is no original thought. Human being would be nothing more than walking chemical reactions, complex systems of reactions, but reactions none the less...and would therefore be no more "conscious" than a leaf...and no more able to bend away from the sun than a leaf. The body as a biological entity would be as a car with no driver nor passenger. The chemical reactions would be bound to the laws of the universe and would be unable to react "otherwise"...thus as a human being it would be impossible for you to "choose otherwise".

subgenius wrote:
The important notion to realize is that with the ability, a supernatural ability, to actually "choose otherwise" one must accept that there is no self at all. That there is no individuality, there is no original thought. Human being would be nothing more than walking chemical reactions, complex systems of reactions, but reactions none the less...and would therefore be no more "conscious" than a leaf...and no more able to bend away from the sun than a leaf. The body as a biological entity would be as a car with no driver nor passenger. The chemical reactions would be bound to the laws of the universe and would be unable to react "otherwise"...thus as a human being it would be impossible for you to "choose otherwise".

Where is the proof or even some evidence for this big bag of assertions?

Themis wrote:Where is the proof or even some evidence for this big bag of assertions?

So, you need "proof" that chemical reactions are bound by the natural laws of the universe?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_law
Fundamental Chemical Laws
Charles' Law
Gay-Lussac's Law
Conservation of Mass
Conservation of Energy
Dalton's Law
Definite Composition
Dulong & Petit's Law
Faraday's Law
Henry's Law
Ideal Gas law
Periodic Law
etc...

I believe the above references are sufficient in proving that chemical reactions are predictable and unable to react "otherwise".

Are you suggesting that there is a manner that a human body can over-ride how one chemical will react with another?

So, if the human body and its existence is absolutely composed of only chemical reactions then these reactions are what "control" everything we do, everything we say, everything we feel, and everything we think....thus one chemical reaction is not capable of "choosing" how another chemical reaction will behave...for both reactions are predictable by the laws that govern them...they are incapable of reacting "otherwise"....they will always react the way they react.
For example:
2 H2 + O2 will always yield 2 H2O
it is impossible for the above reaction to "choose" to yield anything other than 2 H2O - the product of that reaction will always be the same.
iron+oxygen=rust....always

So, with that being said, by definition, the ability to choose otherwise must be supernatural.

We are big bags of chemical reactions.

subgenius wrote: 2 H2 + O2 will always yield 2 H2O

Genius could you explain your calculations?
I am no professor of chemistry but I would have thought that 2 H2 + O2 would yield 2 H2O2?

Since you calculate 2 2 parts Hydrogen and 2 parts Oxygen?

subgenius wrote:iron+oxygen=rust....always

Plus If Iron was kept in pure O2, without Hydrogen, would it rust?

Is it not the Hydrogen2 and Oxygen1 that makes H2O?