Free Will x Infinity =...

[serenity now]

Okay, I've never had a formal logic or philosophy class, so read at your own peril! This is more me thinking out loud than anything else.

First I'll describe what I mean by "Heaven":
1. There is nothing one would describe as "evil" there
2. There is free will

Okay, now imagine the world has ended and everyone is dead and either in Heaven or Hell. It's a given that they were all human once, and I think we all agree that no human is morally perfect. To put it in a way more relevant to this post, the probability of someone, anyone, doing something "evil" is a positive, non-zero number, arbitrarily small, but never zero.

I was thinking about probability, and how given an infinite amount of time, anything with a non-zero probability will not only happen, but happen an infinite amount of times. So with free will and Heaven, I feel forced to conclude that since everyone who has or ever will live has a non-zero capability of evil, everyone in an eternal existence will commit an infinite amount of evil and thus end up in Hell. And this of course applies to the denizens of Hell; if you accept that no one is/was absolutely 100% evil, everyone will commit an infinite amount of good.

So now I'm stuck at resolving these two conclusions. Obviously some (if not most) people are more good than evil; although both the amount of good and the amount of evil are infinite, one is still "larger" than the other. This sounds an awful lot like our current, albeit finite, situation: most people doing mostly good with the occasional evil thrown in there. Where did I go wrong?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Where did I go wrong?

1. Free will. Free will of the libertarian kind makes zero sense.
2. Heaven and all that.
3. Trying to put those two together.

 

[Eudaimonist]

It would take an infinite amount of time to commit an infinite number of good or evil acts, so if the requirement for someone in heaven to end up in hell is to commit an infinite number of evil acts, this never happens because time always marches on.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Paradoxum]

First I'll describe what I mean by "Heaven":
1. There is nothing one would describe as "evil" there
2. There is free will

It depends what you mean by free will.

Okay, now imagine the world has ended and everyone is dead and either in Heaven or Hell. It's a given that they were all human once, and I think we all agree that no human is morally perfect. To put it in a way more relevant to this post, the probability of someone, anyone, doing something "evil" is a positive, non-zero number, arbitrarily small, but never zero.

I don't agree that the probability of someone doing something evil is very small. It must be zero. This doesn't necessarily go against free will because, for one, we will lose our physical body and therefore our animal instincts: a major cause of evil. Secondly it could be considered that we would become perfected in union with God. God would be such a clear and powerful part of us that we would have no will to sin.

I was thinking about probability, and how given an infinite amount of time, anything with a non-zero probability will not only happen, but happen an infinite amount of times. So with free will and Heaven, I feel forced to conclude that since everyone who has or ever will live has a non-zero capability of evil, everyone in an eternal existence will commit an infinite amount of evil and thus end up in Hell. And this of course applies to the denizens of Hell; if you accept that no one is/was absolutely 100% evil, everyone will commit an infinite amount of good.

This also assumes there is time in heaven. An eternal afterlife has problems, but then so does an atemporal one. In the former, I cannot conceive of life without ending. Ten billion years being nothing in the grand scheme of things. Its almost so absurd so to make nonsense. Of course this doesn't prove it not true. As for the latter, it has to be asked in what sense we are alive and ourselves if we have no time.

So now I'm stuck at resolving these two conclusions. Obviously some (if not most) people are more good than evil; although both the amount of good and the amount of evil are infinite, one is still "larger" than the other. This sounds an awful lot like our current, albeit finite, situation: most people doing mostly good with the occasional evil thrown in there. Where did I go wrong?

I hope you don't mind the points I have made then.

 

[Resha Caner]

I agree with Paradoxum. You have an implicit assumption that free will somehow requires us to do evil. If evil is required, it's not really free will. That was the whole point of Martin Luther's On the Bondage of the Will.

There are 2 types of "sin", and people only seem to ever think of one kind - the actual act of commiting evil. Luther spoke of a second kind - a corruption we carry with us from birth. It is not that free will leads us to sin, but rather that we are like a broken machine. A broken machine will never do its task correctly.

So, part of faith in Christ - the "born again" aspect people speak of - is to be recreated perfectly. It is only then that we truly have free will - that we are free from our brokenness and can do things in a God-pleasing way. In a sense it means we can finally do things the way we really want to do them and don't have to worry about messing up all the time.

 

[quatona]

Luther spoke of a second kind - a corruption we carry with us from birth. It is not that free will leads us to sin, but rather that we are like a broken machine. A broken machine will never do its task correctly.

So, part of faith in Christ - the "born again" aspect people speak of - is to be recreated perfectly. It is only then that we truly have free will - that we are free from our brokenness and can do things in a God-pleasing way.

How come mankind - once created perfectly - became a bunch of broken machines? And why would that not happen again? And if it can´t happen again - why didn´t God create us that way (perfect in the sense of uncorruptable) the first time?

 

[quatona]

I don't agree that the probability of someone doing something evil is very small. It must be zero. This doesn't necessarily go against free will because, for one, we will lose our physical body and therefore our animal instincts: a major cause of evil. Secondly it could be considered that we would become perfected in union with God. God would be such a clear and powerful part of us that we would have no will to sin.

I have problems reconciling all this with the A&E story.

 

[elopez]

First I'll describe what I mean by "Heaven":
1. There is nothing one would describe as "evil" there
2. There is free will

I would agree with 1 but no so much 2. Although it is all a matter of speculation I personally believe there is no free will in Heaven.

Okay, now imagine the world has ended and everyone is dead and either in Heaven or Hell. It's a given that they were all human once, and I think we all agree that no human is morally perfect. To put it in a way more relevant to this post, the probability of someone, anyone, doing something "evil" is a positive, non-zero number, arbitrarily small, but never zero.

Okay, it is very probable that man is going to commit evil.

I was thinking about probability, and how given an infinite amount of time, anything with a non-zero probability will not only happen, but happen an infinite amount of times. So with free will and Heaven, I feel forced to conclude that since everyone who has or ever will live has a non-zero capability of evil, everyone in an eternal existence will commit an infinite amount of evil and thus end up in Hell. And this of course applies to the denizens of Hell; if you accept that no one is/was absolutely 100% evil, everyone will commit an infinite amount of good.

If there is no free will in Heaven one cannot commit sin or evil. Perhaps we could even say that it's not the ability to do sinful things that is abolished but the desire to do sinful things that we no longer possess, which ultimately would mean the ability is abolished, I suppose. Our free will decisions on earth that lead to everlasting life our concreted in God's judgement/will for us to abide in His presence forever.

So now I'm stuck at resolving these two conclusions. Obviously some (if not most) people are more good than evil; although both the amount of good and the amount of evil are infinite, one is still "larger" than the other. This sounds an awful lot like our current, albeit finite, situation: most people doing mostly good with the occasional evil thrown in there. Where did I go wrong?

I would say you went wrong in assuming there is free will in Heaven.

 

[Resha Caner]

How come mankind - once created perfectly - became a bunch of broken machines? And why would that not happen again? And if it can´t happen again - why didn´t God create us that way (perfect in the sense of uncorruptable) the first time?

Often when I answer questions from non-believers, I think they're just sticking their head in the sand and refusing to face what is right in front of them. But this is a tough set of questions, and I'm honestly not sure if my answer will be clear.

So, we'll have to work through this together ... unless you're not interested in an excercise like that. It will be fun for me to see if I can untangle my thoughts, so I hope others take it in that context.

I'll start by saying that I don't believe God knew Adam and Eve would sin. When they were created, a way was made for them to live the perfect life. And yet, in order for them to have free will, there had to be other possibilities as well. In order for those possibilities to exist, God had to choose voluntary nescience (though I hesitate to use that term because people always seem to misinterpret it). IMO, voluntary nescience is Biblical (Jeremiah 31:34 is one of several examples).

So, God didn't know which path Adam and Eve would choose, (i.e. He did not create evil) yet because of his infinite wisdom he had a plan in the event that they would stray. He announced the plan to Adam almost as soon as he sinned (Gen 3:15). The plan was to create a new order (Rev 21:4). The new order requires accepting Christ. That's not the Lutheran way of saying it, which focuses more on a choice not to reject him rather than to accept him, but I don't want to get tangled up in that right now. There is also all kinds of issues with "time" that can really make this messy. It's just easier if, for now, we simply say that the new order requires accepting him.

So, it wouldn't have worked for Christ to sacrifice himself before Adam sinned when, in order to preserve free will, God chose not to know whether Adam would sin or not. You see, the only way for Adam to have a free will, and yet never consider sinful choices would be for him to accept Christ's sacrifice, which couldn't happen until after he sinned.

So, it just kind of had to happen this way, given that Adam did choose to sin even though God laid out a pretty plain path that would have prevented the original sin had he chosen differently.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I'll start by saying that I don't believe God knew Adam and Eve would sin.

Non-omniscient God. Check.

When they were created, a way was made for them to live the perfect life. And yet, in order for them to have free will, there had to be other possibilities as well. In order for those possibilities to exist, God had to choose voluntary nescience

Correction, voluntary blindness. But I don't see why this would be necessary. He could simply have known that they would "sin" and went with A&E's sin anyway.

So, God didn't know which path Adam and Eve would choose, (i.e. He did not create evil) yet because of his infinite wisdom he had a plan in the event that they would stray.

Voluntary blindness, and a Plan B.

He announced the plan to Adam almost as soon as he sinned (Gen 3:15).

Voluntary blindness, a Plan B, and yet he's watchful for what he doesn't know.

So, it wouldn't have worked for Christ to sacrifice himself before Adam sinned when, in order to preserve free will, God chose not to know whether Adam would sin or not.

Can this get any more convoluted? God has a Plan B, and is watchful for sin, and yet he can't have Christ sacrifice himself because he "doesn't know" whether Adam would sin or not? That doesn't make sense.

It would make more sense that Christ wouldn't have been able to sacrifice himself prior to Adam because there was no human context for that to happen.

So, it just kind of had to happen this way, given that Adam did choose to sin even though God laid out a pretty plain path that would have prevented the original sin had he chosen differently.

So God was gambling with the future?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Paradoxum]

How come mankind - once created perfectly - became a bunch of broken machines? And why would that not happen again? And if it can´t happen again - why didn´t God create us that way (perfect in the sense of uncorruptable) the first time?

I don't believe the creation story doesn't say humans were created perfect. It says the world was good, then very good. There aren't grades of perfection.

I have problems reconciling all this with the A&E story.

A&E= Adam and Eve. Sorry, I'm not into all this cool new lingo

It doesn't reconcile with a literal understanding of Genesis, and that is ok.

 

[quatona]

I don't believe the creation story doesn't say humans were created perfect.

Am I having problems dealing with double negatives - or are you having trouble using them?

It says the world was good, then very good. There aren't grades of perfection.

Fine. So what would be an intelligible motive behind creating something as corruptible and then later recreating it as incorruptible? Why not do things right the first time?

It doesn't reconcile with a literal understanding of Genesis, and that is ok.

The problem is not that it doesn´t reconcile with a literal understanding, the problem - at least to me - is that the combination of all these explanations pictures god as an entity whose actions make no sense whatsoever. (Eudaimonists has given a detailed - though imo incomplete - list of the theological problems that these explanations leave us with).

 

[Eudaimonist]

The problem is not that it doesn´t reconcile with a literal understanding, the problem - at least to me - is that the combination of all these explanations pictures god as an entity whose actions make no sense whatsoever.

It makes perfect sense to me... when I speculate that the writers of the A&E myth never thought that Yahweh was omniscient. All that omnimax infallibility stuff appears much later in that religious tradition.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

It makes perfect sense to me... when I speculate that the writers of the A&E myth never thought that Yahweh was omniscient.

So far so good.

Now, how exactly is this premise reconcilable with the idea that (non-omniscient) Yahweh will be able to do things more successfully (i.e. perfectly/incorruptible) in the future?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Now, how exactly is this premise reconcilable with the idea that (non-omniscient) Yahweh will be able to do things more successfully (i.e. perfectly/incorruptible) in the future?

Christ seems to be the Ace up Yahweh's sleeve. Or at least a King.

No, it's not reconcilable with the idea that Yahweh won't make mistakes in the future, but it could be seen as a proper fix to a big blunder.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Resha Caner]

Can this get any more convoluted?

OK. So I don't get any points for admitting that I'm a bit stumped as to how to explain this. Check.

Some things are just complex. I don't see a reason to so quickly dismiss my position as "convoluted" just because it gets a bit difficult in places.

In short, I don't agree with the way you chose to rephrase my post. For example:

Non-omniscient God.

Correction, voluntary blindness.

No.

IMO this comes down to the same old discussion that's been rehashed many times: How can free will and a god with multiple omni powers be reconciled?

Well, because I don't think this is an either/or discussion. My understanding of God comes only from what has been revealed. The Bible never uses words like "omniscient" and "free will," yet it does say other things that imply something akin to those terms. So, they're convenient labels if the parties in a discussion agree on their meaning. Otherwise, they get in the way.

It also helps if the parties in the discussion are making an honest attempt to understand each other rather than looking to score points or deliver cute one-liners. Of course I would never imply that you're doing any such thing! No, of course not! We're just all one big happy family here.

 

[GrayAngel]

I despise that free will is taken for granted in Christianity. It doesn't exist in the Bible. People made it up years later. Paul, and other writers of the Bible, believed in predestination, and that God was ultimately in control of everything.

Now about your question. Considering you haven't had any philosophical classes, I am impressed that you would come up with this. I have thought about it as well. The main problem with the OP, however, is that it assumes that free will exists. Since the Bible not only doesn't mention free will, but teaches directly against it, the argument is only problematic if you're a Christian who doesn't believe in the Bible (or else, one who doesn't know what it says).

Also, as was pointed out before, our bodies carry our sin nature. It's hardwired into our brains that we will sin. However, when we die, we have new bodies, made with no desire for sin.

Now you might look back at the angels, seeing that 1/3 of them fell from Heaven, and ask, "How were they different, and how can we expect that humans in Heaven will never sin?" Well, unlike us, the angels started off in Heaven. They never knew life without God, and though they might have known intellectually how much they needed God, they hadn't ever felt that need. So when Satan came along with the idea to revolt, this sounded good to them, but they failed and were thrown out.

Same with Adam and Eve. They knew that God was all powerful, that He created everything, but they never knew life without God. Satan then came along and offered to make them like God. All they had to do was revolt, taking the forbidden fruit.

We are different. We started off in an imperfect world, separated from God. Some of us will find God, however, and we will learn and feel how much we need Him. This is the way God produces genuine love: the kind that lasts forever.

When we get to Heaven, we have no sin nature, and we know what it's like to live in sin, and we don't want to be separated from God. Not to mention, God is in complete control, and He will not let us fall. The chances of someone sinning in Heaven is a perfect 0.

 

[Resha Caner]

I despise that free will is taken for granted in Christianity. It doesn't exist in the Bible. People made it up years later. Paul, and other writers of the Bible, believed in predestination, and that God was ultimately in control of everything.

Sigh.

Suffice to say we've discussed this before, GrayAngel, and don't agree.

 

[quatona]

OK. So I don't get any points for admitting that I'm a bit stumped as to how to explain this. Check.

Some things are just complex. I don't see a reason to so quickly dismiss my position as "convoluted" just because it gets a bit difficult in places.

Not to speak on Eudaimonists behalf, but as far as I am concerned the problem is not so much that things do or may become "a bit difficult". The problem to me is (and please don´t take this personally): There is a point that doesn´t seem to make much sense, and after you guys have tried to explain it there are five or ten points that make no sense.
These explanations often look like being made up as you walk along. With each naked spot that your argumentative blanket covers it unveils a couple of others. Then I ask about one of the others, you pull the blanket to cover this spot, and again others are uncovered. It is my impression that the argumentative blanket is simply to small.


Maybe a different approach would help: Instead of fixing stuff on the fly you could approach this systematically. For example:

1. God´s capabilities are... (which would help us not to confuse your god concept with others).
2. God´s motive and intention behind creating was....
3. God´s strategy in reaching this goal was...
etc. etc.

Personally, I already have problems wrapping my mind around a hypothetical motive for creating a physical world with all its problems - other than a desire for drama.

 

[Resha Caner]

It is my impression that the argumentative blanket is simply to small.

Maybe a different approach would help: Instead of fixing stuff on the fly you could approach this systematically.

And I don't want to dispute the above assertion, so don't take this personally either. I believe that is your impression, but ...

I'm not fixing things on the fly. Rather, this is akin to an algebra student calling QM convoluted or incomplete after a physics PhD tries to simplify QM to terms the algebra student can understand.

Now, I'm not claiming I'm the be all and end all of philosophy. Rather, my question to you is: You want a "systematic" approach? Really? The very fact that this discussion is occurring in an internet forum challenges that statement. The format is not conducive to presenting a formal argument.

I've asked this before. Really? You want to get down & dirty and slog through all the details from beginning to end? OK. Let's do it. Rarely do I get someone who takes me up on that. But if that's what you want ...