The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!
'Free will' is proof of 'no god'.
Assuming that the word 'god' refers to the 'creator of everything' and is 'perfect' (the majority of definitions) then the existence of 'free will' (if it does, indeed, exist) precludes the existence of such a god.
If I have free will, it stands to reason that I am able to apply it to creating something that did not exist before as a direct result of the unfettered choices I have made within the non-confines of that free will (In other words, a god would not have had any control of those choices and, therefore, also have no authorship of the creative result.)
Therefore, I would have created something that was not created by god.
Therefore, everything would not have been created by god.
Therefore, god would not exist as defined, i.e. creator of everything.
Therefore, god can only exist if there is no free will.
Therefore, if there were a god, there could be no sin (imperfection), since everything would be his doing.
**** addendum
This is a fascinating discussion of 'free will' - but much misses the irony of my point - in that it poses an argument in favor of atheism based on a standard argument used by Abrahamic believers - that god created everything - except he didn't. Actually, they are stuck with a tremendous paradox we, as atheists, are not. Because, if god created free will - he made it possible and, therefore, certain, that some things are NOT of his creation - but if he didn't create free will, then he is pre-damning many people to hell (which JW's and Calvinists sort of agree on.)
Of course, as an atheist, if there is no real random number (a no-cause cause), we also have a problem because that suggests (albeit on a chaos theory level) that everything is still pretermined by a hyper-complex multi-chain of causality and, in a way, suggests a 'Master Plan' of sorts (albeit it without an actual 'Master' behind it.).
If I have free will, it stands to reason that I am able to apply it to creating something that did not exist before as a direct result of the unfettered choices I have made within the non-confines of that free will (In other words, a god would not have had any control of those choices and, therefore, also have no authorship of the creative result.)
Therefore, I would have created something that was not created by god.
Therefore, everything would not have been created by god.
Therefore, god would not exist as defined, i.e. creator of everything.
Therefore, god can only exist if there is no free will.
Therefore, if there were a god, there could be no sin (imperfection), since everything would be his doing.
**** addendum
This is a fascinating discussion of 'free will' - but much misses the irony of my point - in that it poses an argument in favor of atheism based on a standard argument used by Abrahamic believers - that god created everything - except he didn't. Actually, they are stuck with a tremendous paradox we, as atheists, are not. Because, if god created free will - he made it possible and, therefore, certain, that some things are NOT of his creation - but if he didn't create free will, then he is pre-damning many people to hell (which JW's and Calvinists sort of agree on.)
Of course, as an atheist, if there is no real random number (a no-cause cause), we also have a problem because that suggests (albeit on a chaos theory level) that everything is still pretermined by a hyper-complex multi-chain of causality and, in a way, suggests a 'Master Plan' of sorts (albeit it without an actual 'Master' behind it.).
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on -
Yeah, Glenn,
That requires more explaining . . .
-
Permalink Reply by Jez Smith on -
The presence or absence of freewill does not prove anything, a theist will argue that if freewill exists then it has been granted by god in order that people do good things by their own choice and they have the option of doing evil if they so choose, the fact that this goes against the whole idea of sin and ever lasting punishment for people do do evil things is neither here nor there.If freewill does not exist and is only an illusion then you can say either God hasnt given it because either he is not omnipitant and he is not able to grant freewill and he is limited to only being able to do what is consistantly describable, or he has chosen to withhold it for reasons of his own which are un-knowable.
-
Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on
-
Yeah, Jez,
When it comes to God and his adherents, nothing proves anything.
-
Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on
-
@Chris,
Given infinity and a quantum universe; every natural possibility MUST occur eventually.
It's like Einstein said:
“What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world.”
-
Permalink Reply by Chris on -
Einstein didn't say "“What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world.”
There is no evidence that he even wondered about god's design other than from a poetic standpoint.
-
Permalink Reply by Glenn Sogge on -
From the AIP.org (American Institute of Physics) website: "But two other reports may point to the more profound layer of Einstein's deepest convictions. One is his remark to one of his assistants, Ernst Straus: "What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world." The second is Einstein's reply to a curious telegram."
Link here. The whole article is worth reading.
-
Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on
-
Yes, Chris,
Absolutely. Did somebody say otherwise?
Einstein invoked God-speak as the metaphorical language of mystery; of our ignorance. That's unfortunate because religious folk love to take his God-speak out of context and give it their own spin. Einstein is a favorite target of "quote mining".
Actually, many non-religious people, including many scientists, use God-speak in the same way.
-
Permalink Reply by Chris on
-
It's unfortunate that some people take the bible literally.
In the U.S. there seems to be many who do.
-
Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on
-
Jesus, Chris,
Is that an edict or a pronouncement? Should have checked with Google first.
Update Your Membership :
Nexus on Social Media:
 |
 |
 |
Latest Activity
- Top News
- Everything
Ruth Anthony-Gardner replied to tom sarbeck's discussion Trump's Speech at the UN's General Assembly. Helpful or Harmful? Entirely So or Partly So?
Grinning Cat replied to tom sarbeck's discussion Trump's Speech at the UN's General Assembly. Helpful or Harmful? Entirely So or Partly So?
© 2017 Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.
Powered by
