Monday, June 27, 2011

Is there free will in heaven?

Is there free will in heaven?

If yes:

Are there bad deeds done in heaven?

If no, why not? Is it that no one chooses to sin because heaven is so amazingly awesome that they have no need/desire to commit evil? If there is free will in heaven, but no one acts on it (to do sin/bad works) because heaven is so amazing, then that means god has the ability to create a perfect place devoid of evil, without violating our free will. If that's the case, why was Earth not created in such a way, or what's the point of Earth at all?

If yes, bad deeds are done in heaven, then doesn't that mean heaven is, well, no longer heavenly? Some might say that the difference would still be that in heaven, you're with god, but if god is omnipresent, he's with you on Earth anyways (usually in people's aortic valves, if the christians are correct) which means that heaven is no different than Earth (unless of course you do not attribute omnipresence to god). Also, what happens to those people who do sin in heaven? Do they get sent to hell?

If no, there is no free will in heaven, then that means god has no qualms with us being devoid of free will, which means the free will defense for the problem of evil goes bye bye, since god clearly has no problem violating our free will.

Thoughts? Am I missing something?


  1. Pretty much spot on here. By the way, I decided to explore the religion and philosophy section of GT, and boy, it is overflowing with stupidity and bad arguments.

  2. Tell me about it! I used to frequent the r n p but grew tired of the moronic discussions. The science section was supposed to be like a safe haven but it started to get abused as well.

  3. Yeah, it's pretty bad. There's even a thread in there where people are asking the question whether atheism is similar to religion. I usually don't post in the forum unless there's something that really bothers me.

  4. You know, I've heard these arguments before. Same as the old "problem of evil/suffering/free will" argument, etc etc etc.

    But, honestly, I'm not impressed. They only kind of make sense when pointing out certain individuals' inconsistent beliefs, which tend to be circular anyways so the argument is rendered useless (most of the time).

    Its assuming that a god has to have some elaborate, complex, seemingly beautiful or articulate reason for its actions. But for am infinite, eternal, omni-potent (or just super poweful) being, its kind of an asinine assumption. It really just comes down to that it wanted to. Did it need a reason? Not necessarily.

    Also, it might have in other instances made some heaven like universes/dimensions/etc in which it made beings to be in without some type of prior existence. It might have made creatures with free will while others without free will. Life in this universe is just one instance out of many, with its own circumstances.

    Again, these types of questions or arguments assume claims of what god is, or the personality of god, or what heaven is, etc, only made by some, not everyone. I think within every religion that this pertains to, and every denomination in said religions, you'll find people with various beliefs in which these arguments do not apply. Of course there are always the classics or stereotypes (hence where these arguments originate), just as with any group of people.

  5. I have a serious question here magx01. The anthropic principle is still something that I don't fully understand. I've tried but I can't. From what little I do understand about it, it seems kind of ridiculous. Could you clarify it a bit. I know you made a blog about it, but I still didn't understand it fully.

  6. Paladin: That sort of response, while valid, is always met with...well...[i]duh[/i] ;) I always post these sorts of things as a response to specific claims/beliefs/theologies. As a response to the people I am targeting, I think it works just fine, especially if you start here:

    [i]If no, there is no free will in heaven, then that means god has no qualms with us being devoid of free will, which means the free will defense for the problem of evil goes bye bye, since god clearly has no problem violating our free will. [/i]


    The Anthropic Principle is the notion that any observations made about the origins of the universe cannot be made unless the observers exist.

    So, for example, someone cannot use the nature of the universe as an argument for their being a god, because whether or not there is indeed such a being, the universe must be exactly as it is for us to observe it. So saying "this had to happen then this then this and the odds are so high...." does not work, because it DID happen, and the only way you can say that happened is if it happened in the first place. You don't get to use that as an argument for god, if you cannot rule out a naturalistic explanation.

    My blog post explained this much better.....

  7. Gotcha. Its been a while, so I must have forgot that is how you post. :)

  8. Alright, I get it more now, but does this principle still work if theists say that maybe it's not fine tuned for life but just fine tuned in general. I see theists ask why are the laws as specific as they are? When they say this I refer them to the multiverse theory.


Tell magx01 and the rest of The Thoughtful Gamers what's on your mind!