Your browser does not support inline frames or is currently configured not to display inline frames. FREE WILL IS NOT A GIFT FROM GOD

Religion blames us not God for evil for God is said to be all-good and all-powerful. It says he gave us the gift of free will and we abused it.

Is free will given for our benefit, to make life worse for us or is it neutral, neither bad or good, important or unimportant?

If it is evil then God is evil.

It can be neutral as in causing as much evil or harm as good. But the problem is that God has to control it to make it neutral and that is a sin when he could make it good instead.

So free will has to be good. But for who?

Is it good for us? No for we would be better off having no free will but under the illusion that we are free whilst in the grip of endless pleasure like a perpetual orgasm or something - you can't make yourself have a brilliant orgasm anyway even with free will. When we feel pleasure to some degree all the time for we cannot stop ourselves having likes there is no reason why that pleasure should be magnified and made permanent in us. Sacrificial love is only important to us in so far as it develops happiness in the practitioner so it can be done without and isn't really sacrifice then anyway. If you want to believe in God you have to claim that free will is important in so far as it hurts the person exercising it for that is the only real sacrifice and the freedom defence is about God calling us into sacrificing what we want to do for the sake of what is right. So who is it good for? It is good only for God if people doing good freely means so much to him. He is thinking only of himself. He shouldn't have made us at all if we are free. The defence does not manage to convince us that God is perfect or lovable or even likeable. The belief of antichrists that the God of Jesus is the God of the slaves is vindicated except that sometimes the masters on earth think something of the slaves.

The free will defence contradicts the fact that the human person is the absolute value. It is obvious that human happiness is our main goal. If people should be happy then it follows that they are more important than happiness - they are not as important as happiness for that would mean you could kill them to maximise happiness for it is because they are persons that they should be happy so persons are of more value meaning that there is nothing more precious.

It follows from this that it is better not to have the free will to kill. If God has given us that kind of free will then God denies that human life is so important. Our logic tells us that the respect for the supreme value of life sums up what good is and how it differs from evil. It is the essence of what doing right is. God then is a concept that demands that we be amoralists or that we accept that God has the right to arbitrarily decide what he wants us to consider to be good and we have no business disagreeing with him. To hold that free will is a choice between being life-affirming and life-hating is crazy when God has empowered us to kill by failing to put force-fields around people that prevent them from killing one another.

Every moment of life is important when life is of absolute importance. But we lose so much of our life for we forget most of the things we do and have done. God giving us such a bad memory implies that life is not the absolute value and that it is blasphemy to say it is. The Church says we will get our memories back at the resurrection. But as there is no need for them in Heaven then why should we?

The Church pretends to believe that life is the absolute value and yet it says that you should bar a man with heart-trouble who needs your telephone from the house if he would steal if your back was turned instead of telling you to let him come in for his life is so valuable and it is better to be robbed than for his life to be put at risk for he could need to call the doctor to save his life anytime. They say God set their standards so they are accusing him of being a hypocrite - hypocrisy then is worse when they commit it than when an Atheist commits it. The Atheist does not say that hypocrisy is right but if God is a hypocrite and you believe in him you have to say he is right so that is worse than just being a mere hypocrite.

The Church says that when anybody hurts me I should agree that I deserve it totally but still hold that it is wrong which is the paradox of holding that it was undeserved and yet my due (page 101, Moral Philosophy). The Church always uses paradox to cover up its incoherent and two-faced doctrines. In practice, if you believe you deserve to be hurt you will not resist the attacker and will feel guilty about reporting him to the police or defending yourself. The Church has been famous for producing doormats. Deserve means you asked for the bad consequences of your actions. It also means you earn them. The principal element is asking for you earned because you asked. The doctrine that evil is our fault is simply saying that we deserve to be exposed to all the evil we meet or can meet for we have asked for it. It could lead to terrible harm. I repeat, because it says we asked and asked is the main constituent of deserving it is accusing us of deserving all we get and more. To have compassion then would be saying the evil should not be happening which means you deny people should get what they deserve which means that God was evil for letting us stay in this evil world instead of putting us on a better one. It is saying the freedom defence is itself hard faced and evil. If the freedom to harm yourself should be respected then not giving you what you deserve would be degrading you and cursing your freedom. The freedom defence cannot be used as a basis for compassion but only as a basis for pretend compassion for you cannot be compassionate towards people you believe deserve to suffer.

Free will is not a gift from God.