Abrahamic religions: If nothing was evil, would there be freewill

[The Sum of Awe]

Putting aside my personal disbelief in freewill and Abrahamic religious teachings, and putting aside the debate of whether Adam and Eve is metaphorical or literal, there are debates about why God put the tree there in the first place. The answer is almost always something along the lines of they had to have the option to deny God's rules otherwise they'd have no freewill and considerably be 'robots'

I can see how that makes sense from a religious person's perspective.

But what if Adam and Eve in this story were allowed to eat from that tree? Everything is exactly the same, the only thing different would be that the fruit (or anything for that matter) was not forbidden. They still had the same abilities as they had before, only this time there was no concept of evil, God hadn't called anything a sin.

If they are able to do all of the same as before, how could it be said they didn't have freewill? While they are not able to turn against God's wishes if he didn't have any, that wouldn't have mattered in that case would it? Because in the scenario here there would be no such thing as breaking God's rules, not even conceptually, because God would lack rules and is just 100% accepting of all choices they made.

And besides, in the given story it wasn't their original intent to go against God, they seemed to be tricked into it, tempted, and various other possible reasons but from how it looks it doesn't seem like any of their reasons were to be rebellious.

 

[jojom]

An excellent examination of the excuse: "they had to have the option to deny God's rules otherwise they'd have no freewill and considerably be 'robots'."

Edited to add these examples of the evil-free will connection.

Therefore, we could say that one of the reasons that God permits evil and suffering is that of man’s free will.
https://carm.org/why-does-god-allow-evil-and-suffering-world

Why did God not simply make us so that we could not be sinful? This is the question of free will. Without free will, we would be God's puppets. We could not truly love God. Because He desired to have a real relationship with us – one that involves choice – He had to allow for evil to exist.
http://www.compellingtruth.org/God-allow-evil.html

Why does God allow such evil to happen? If God is so great and so good, why does he allow human beings to hurt each other?
The answer lies in what is both our greatest blessing and our worst curse: our capacity to make choices. God has given us a free will.
http://rickwarren.org/devotional/english/why-does-god-allow-evil

A free will is only free if it is free to choose evil, and to do evil. If I cannot choose evil then the good I choose is of no value – because I was programmed to choose good. This would mean there really isn’t any such value as love or faith. It would mean that God isn’t really lovable – I have to be programmed to love Him. No. All that God wants to do necessitates FREE WILL.
http://www.goodnewsarticles.com/god_allow_evil.htm

Evil is inherent in the risky gift of free will. God could have made us machines but to do so would have robbed us of our precious freedom of choice, and we would have ceased to be human. We all exercise free choice in the direction of our nature which is traced to the “fall” of man. This is the basic reason for evil and suffering in the world. It is man's responsibility, not God's. Why does God permit evil ? He could stop it, but in so doing would destroy us all. It is worth noting that the whole point of real Christianity lies not in interference with the human power to choose, but in God producing a willing consent for us to choose good over evil. He offers us choice and by doing so a chance to grow and understand the difference.
http://www.letusreason.org/Apolo4.htm

. . . in order to create a world with free moral creatures, God had to make a world where evil is a possibility.
http://www.faithfacts.org/search-fo...ristians/how-can-god-allow-evil-and-suffering

God does not wish that evil exist, but God allows it because free will is more important.
http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~teneyck/essays/theodicy.html

[John] Hick claims that it would be impossible for the deity to have created human with free will and yet not with the ability to choose evil.
http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter 3 Religion/Problem_of_Evil.htm


.​

 

[Parsimony]

Doesn't seem like it would have any effect on free will to me. One could use free will when deciding to eat either an apple or an orange, but neither choice is an evil one. I think the next question would be "can God change the laws of morality such that no possible choices or actions can be deemed evil?"

 

[JustWondering]

Doesn't seem like it would have any effect on free will to me. One could use free will when deciding to eat either an apple or an orange, but neither choice is an evil one. I think the next question would be "can God change the laws of morality such that no possible choices or actions can be deemed evil?"

To me, evil implies a conscious action to cause needless harm to another. If god created people so that they could not be harmed physically and emotionally, wouldn't that eliminate evil?

Also, the bible describes god consciously causing needless harm to others, wouldn't that make the Abrahamic god evil?

 

[Katzpur]

Putting aside my personal disbelief in freewill and Abrahamic religious teachings, and putting aside the debate of whether Adam and Eve is metaphorical or literal, there are debates about why God put the tree there in the first place. The answer is almost always something along the lines of they had to have the option to deny God's rules otherwise they'd have no freewill and considerably be 'robots'

I can see how that makes sense from a religious person's perspective.

But what if Adam and Eve in this story were allowed to eat from that tree? Everything is exactly the same, the only thing different would be that the fruit (or anything for that matter) was not forbidden. They still had the same abilities as they had before, only this time there was no concept of evil, God hadn't called anything a sin.

If they are able to do all of the same as before, how could it be said they didn't have freewill? While they are not able to turn against God's wishes if he didn't have any, that wouldn't have mattered in that case would it? Because in the scenario here there would be no such thing as breaking God's rules, not even conceptually, because God would lack rules and is just 100% accepting of all choices they made.

And besides, in the given story it wasn't their original intent to go against God, they seemed to be tricked into it, tempted, and various other possible reasons but from how it looks it doesn't seem like any of their reasons were to be rebellious.

You're on to something, but you are failing to note one important factor: Adam and Eve disobeyed an instruction God had given them (i.e. not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil), but until they ate the fruit, they didn't have a knowledge of good and evil. Since it's impossible to sin without this knowledge, they didn't actually sin by their disobedience. Disobedience only became "sinful" after they recognized the difference between good and evil.

 

[JustWondering]

Free will seems like a goofy notion to me, especially when used to defend theistic beliefs. Free will is claimed to be important because god doesn't want us to be robots. However, he expects us to behave like robots to not be considered sinful (defective). Doesn't make any logical sense. Free will arguments kinda defeat themselves.

 

[jojom]

Also, the bible describes god consciously causing needless harm to others, wouldn't that make the Abrahamic god evil?

Of course, but some Christians will tell you that ascribing human characteristics to god is verboten. . . . . . . . . . . . .that is, those that are unflattering to him. However, all the good stuff gets a strong thumbs-up.


.

 

[jojom]

Free will seems like a goofy notion to me, especially when used to defend theistic beliefs. Free will is claimed to be important because god doesn't want us to be robots. However, he expects us to behave like robots to not be considered sinful (defective). Doesn't make any logical sense. Free will arguments kinda defeat themselves.

In Christianity free will is absolutely essential so as to make sense of sin and salvation.


.

 

[jojom]

You're on to something, but you are failing to note one important factor: Adam and Eve disobeyed an instruction God had given them (i.e. not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil), but until they ate the fruit, they didn't have a knowledge of good and evil. Since it's impossible to sin without this knowledge, they didn't actually sin by their disobedience. Disobedience only became "sinful" after they recognized the difference between good and evil.

So why do you think god was so concerned that A&E become sinful? After all, he knew (the omniscience thing) they would eat the apple and soon recognize the difference between good and evil.

I think it was all scripted: the innocence, the apple, the naked shame, and the banishment from Eden. They were merely pawns in Act 1-scene 1.


.

 

[Donmax]

Maybe it was the birth of curiosity and if god plan it then maybe that means that god had more to learn from his creation than his creation had to learn from him, if god see and hears his creation then who is learning the most because his creation cannot see and hear god, thinking about it now maybe back then god had the mind of a child.

Also could have been the birth of rebellion i mean adam and eve could see hear and talk to god so they knew him better than all of his other creations, but then again maybe they sat down together and agreed, this is the plan.

Written words of scriptures but the people that wrote those words did they have the free will to write them.

 

[Katzpur]

So why do you think god was so concerned that A&E become sinful? After all, he knew (the omniscience thing) they would eat the apple and soon recognize the difference between good and evil.

Well, to make a long story short, I don't think God wanted Adam and Eve to become sinful. I think He wanted them to become knowledgable. I think He wanted them to have the experiences only mortality could offer them, because it is through such experiences that they could learn and grow and progress. Remember, just before He cast them out of Eden, He said, "Behold the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil." A knowledge of both good and evil is, therefore, evidently a godly trait, and something that He wanted them to have.

I think it was all scripted: the innocence, the apple, the naked shame, and the banishment from Eden. They were merely pawns in Act 1-scene 1..

I don't think for one minute that it was scripted, nor do I think that Adam and Eve put a glitch in God's plan, forcing Him to jump into damage-control mode. They were not forced into anything, which is what would have been the case had they been mere pawns. But, God set the stage for things to unfold exactly as they did. From the LDS perspective, Adam and Eve's decision to eat the forbidden fruit was exactly what was needed in order to get God's Plan of Salvation rolling.

 

[Akivah]

But what if Adam and Eve in this story were allowed to eat from that tree? Everything is exactly the same, the only thing different would be that the fruit (or anything for that matter) was not forbidden. They still had the same abilities as they had before, only this time there was no concept of evil, God hadn't called anything a sin.If they are able to do all of the same as before, how could it be said they didn't have freewill?

Because the definition of "freewill" is having the ability to go against G-d's Teachings. Freewill is not defined as simply expressing a personal preference. Removing the action of going against G-d's Teaching negates any possibility of engaging in "freewill". Using fig leaves instead of oak leaves is a personal preference. Blaming others for your own actions is going against G-d's Teachings. See the difference?

 

[jojom]

Well, to make a long story short, I don't think God wanted Adam and Eve to become sinful. I think He wanted them to become knowledgable. I think He wanted them to have the experiences only mortality could offer them, because it is through such experiences that they could learn and grow and progress. Remember, just before He cast them out of Eden, He said, "Behold the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil." A knowledge of both good and evil is, therefore, evidently a godly trait, and something that He wanted them to have.

But he put an extremely high price on this knowledge: death.

I don't think for one minute that it was scripted, nor do I think that Adam and Eve put a glitch in God's plan, forcing Him to jump into damage-control mode. They were not forced into anything, which is what would have been the case had they been mere pawns. But, God set the stage for things to unfold exactly as they did.

So, you're saying that god is not omniscient, and didn't know what they would do. From the BYU Library

OMNISCIENCE. Latter-day Saints differ among themselves in their understanding of the nature of God's knowledge. Some have thought that God increases endlessly in knowledge as well as in glory and dominion. Others hold to the more traditional view that God's knowledge, including the foreknowledge of future free contingencies, is complete. Despite these differing views, there is accord on two fundamental issues: (1) God's foreknowledge does not causally determine human choices, and (2) this knowledge, like God's power, is maximally efficacious. No event occurs that he has not anticipated or has not taken into account in his planning.
http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Omnipotent_God;_Omnipresence_of_God;_Omniscience_of_God
​

From the LDS perspective, Adam and Eve's decision to eat the forbidden fruit was exactly what was needed in order to get God's Plan of Salvation rolling.

But wasn''t it because they ate the forbidden fruit that they needed salvation? Had they not eaten the apple there would be no need for salvation. Sounds like a set-up to me.

God: [bored to tears] "yea know, I want to be able to save people from something. Hmmm. Okay! I've got it. I'll create a place so dastardly they will be clamoring to avoid it. I'll create Hell and save them from that. But how to make sure they can get there . . . . .Of course!! I'll make certain they leave earth. I'll kill them. [sheepishly] Errrr, make sure they die. And to put my plan into operation I'll have Adam and Eve choose what's behind curtain number one: Eat an Apple (Behind curtain number two was a brand new automobile.)


.​

 

[jojom]

Because the definition of "freewill" is having the ability to go against G-d's Teachings.

Boy, this is a new one on me. Got a source or something?


.

 

[Aiviu]

@ OP:
I am not sure if you really question; what the right translation for their sin is.

 

[Akivah]

Boy, this is a new one on me. Got a source or something?
.

Not really. It is one of my understandings of the topic in Judaism.

Another way to think of freewill, is that humankind has two impulses, the good (yetzer tov) and the evil (yetzer ra).
http://www.jewfaq.org/human.htm#Yetzer

The yetzer tov is the moral conscience, the inner voice that reminds you of G-d's law when you consider doing something that is forbidden. The yetzer ra is more difficult to define, because there are many different ideas about it. It is not a desire to do evil in the way we normally think of it in Western society. Rather, it is usually conceived as the selfish nature, the desire to satisfy personal needs (food, shelter, sex, etc.) without regard for the moral consequences of fulfilling those desires.The yetzer ra is not a bad thing. It was created by G-d, and all things created by G-d are good. But the yetzer ra can lead to wrongdoing when it is not controlled by the yetzer tov.

The yetzer ra is generally seen as something internal to a person, not as an external force acting on a person. People have the ability to choose which impulse to follow: the yetzer tov or the yetzer ra. That is the heart of the Jewish understanding of free will. We all have the ability to make our own choices, and we will all be held responsible for the choices we make

 

[Katzpur]

But he put an extremely high price on this knowledge: death.

So, you're saying that god is not omniscient, and didn't know what they would do. From the BYU Library

OMNISCIENCE. Latter-day Saints differ among themselves in their understanding of the nature of God's knowledge. Some have thought that God increases endlessly in knowledge as well as in glory and dominion. Others hold to the more traditional view that God's knowledge, including the foreknowledge of future free contingencies, is complete. Despite these differing views, there is accord on two fundamental issues: (1) God's foreknowledge does not causally determine human choices, and (2) this knowledge, like God's power, is maximally efficacious. No event occurs that he has not anticipated or has not taken into account in his planning.
http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Omnipotent_God;_Omnipresence_of_God;_Omniscience_of_God
​

But wasn''t it because they ate the forbidden fruit that they needed salvation? Had they not eaten the apple there would be no need for salvation. Sounds like a set-up to me.

God: [bored to tears] "yea know, I want to be able to save people from something. Hmmm. Okay! I've got it. I'll create a place so dastardly they will be clamoring to avoid it. I'll create Hell and save them from that. But how to make sure they can get there . . . . .Of course!! I'll make certain they leave earth. I'll kill them. [sheepishly] Errrr, make sure they die. And to put my plan into operation I'll have Adam and Eve choose what's behind curtain number one: Eat an Apple (Behind curtain number two was a brand new automobile.)


.​

For some reason, I thought you were interested in actual mature dialogue. Silly me.

 

[jojom]

For some reason, I thought you were interested in actual mature dialogue. Silly me.

So you don't consider my little digression into wit to be mature. Fair enough; however, it doesn't mitigate my points that:

1. God put an extremely high price on this knowledge: death.

2. You seem to imply god didn't know what A&E would do: that he wasn't omniscient.

3. your "Adam and Eve's decision to eat the forbidden fruit was exactly what was needed in order to get God's Plan of Salvation rolling," implies that god was expecting A&E to eat the apple. That to get god's plan rolling they had to eat the apple.

So, for whatever reason, god had a plan to save humans from death. But, to insure that people died so he could save them he required A&E to eat the apple.


.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

What if Adam n Eve where sinning of the flesh kinda makes more sense than a dumb Apple lol .
What could they a done to offend God yeah is a list but not so long .

 

[Levite]

Putting aside my personal disbelief in freewill and Abrahamic religious teachings, and putting aside the debate of whether Adam and Eve is metaphorical or literal, there are debates about why God put the tree there in the first place. The answer is almost always something along the lines of they had to have the option to deny God's rules otherwise they'd have no freewill and considerably be 'robots'

I can see how that makes sense from a religious person's perspective.

But what if Adam and Eve in this story were allowed to eat from that tree? Everything is exactly the same, the only thing different would be that the fruit (or anything for that matter) was not forbidden. They still had the same abilities as they had before, only this time there was no concept of evil, God hadn't called anything a sin.

If they are able to do all of the same as before, how could it be said they didn't have freewill? While they are not able to turn against God's wishes if he didn't have any, that wouldn't have mattered in that case would it? Because in the scenario here there would be no such thing as breaking God's rules, not even conceptually, because God would lack rules and is just 100% accepting of all choices they made.

And besides, in the given story it wasn't their original intent to go against God, they seemed to be tricked into it, tempted, and various other possible reasons but from how it looks it doesn't seem like any of their reasons were to be rebellious.

Eating the fruit didn't give Adam and Eve free will: it allowed them to discover that they had free will all along. If it hadn't been that fruit, it would've been something else. Sooner or later, rules always come into the picture, and are always broken.

I have always been of the opinion that God wanted them to eat from the tree. The Adam and Eve story is a parable about growing up, about having to live in the real world and not be a child any longer (and I mean about understanding consequences and having to work for what you need/want, not sexual innocence-- they were already having sex well before eating the fruit). In that parable, God is the parent: and as any parent will tell you, the best way to get your young child to do something is to say, "Whatever you do, don't do X. You can do anything else, just not X." The instant the kid thinks you're not looking, they will go directly to do X. And the so-called "curses" (which are never called curses in the text) are not punishments: they are merely descriptions of what it was like to live as an adult in the ancient world-- and to a limited extent what it is still like to live as an adult now.

Knowing that one has free will is the first step toward growing up, since so much of growing up is about learning how to use your free will responsibly and effectively.

In this universe, there is no such scenario as "if nothing was evil." And that's not even touching on the fact that while Adam and Eve eating the fruit might be disobedient, and it might even be wrong, it was not evil. Those things are not synonymous. But evil is a part of the fabric of our reality in this universe: it cannot be otherwise, since this universe is made up both of dualities and spectra of moral and ethical choices. That is, indeed, how God designed it to be.