No I wouldn’t.
Moderating
Rejecting the concept of “free will” is one thing and seeking definition/clarity of the term, but asking what the hell is God, and making remarks about genital placement looks a bit thread shitty.
No warning issued, just a note.
I think we’d have to know what life would be like if God took away free will. There’s some debate if we actually have free will or not. It may seem like we are making independent choices, but the reality might be that we are reacting in defined ways given a set of inputs. It looks like free will, but that’s only because we are such complicated machines that predicting the outcome is virtually impossible for us to do. It could be that free will is totally an illusion. This bargain by God might just mean that He takes away the proclivity of humans to kill and hurt each other but that everything else is pretty much the same.
I think a real life example of the concept you are postulating is the nation of China. They have tremendous social control there. You can’t even have online access without submitting to facial recognition. Everywhere you go on line or IRL, everyone you meet, everything you do, everything you say, etc ad infinitum, is monitored by the government. Personal freedom there is infinitely less than it is here. If we compare their society to ours, what can we say? I personally believe that we all have to sacrifice some of our personal freedom in order to keep a healthy, free society. On the left extreme, we have social chaos, and on the extreme right we have rigid oppression and control. Where’s the balance?
I’ve never seen a thread where so many fight the hypothetical. We all know what God is, we all know what free will is. Given these premises, it’s a fair question.
If you currently believe that free will is an illusion now, in our reality, that we’re all just “cosmic pool balls” bouncing around in paths determined only by the laws of physics, then I submit this thread is not for you. And that your world view is kinda sad.
In answer to the OP, no.
Agreed! It is not a religious discussion. The OP has a right to his parameters without any “thread shitting” or “thread hijacking”.
I would agree also, free will is not the same for everyone because we have not all had the same experiences in life. I also believe that the main purposes of having God are to serve as a model. He or she would be the model of a perfect human. without that model of perfection, it is just a matter of how much imperfection we are willing to accept as a model because we will have models.
By getting the votes of everyone on the planet, God is going to get a lot of votes from people who don’t believe in Him or doesn’t believe in a god at all. It seems like this thread having opinions from everyone is appropriate if He’s going to be asking all of us to vote. That is, assuming that God holds all votes to be created equal and doesn’t only look at the votes of His followers.
But if this was really God, then He probably wouldn’t need to ask. It seems like if God really existed and was God as He has been defined, then He would already know the answer.
Not how my theistic perspective works, but for purposes of this thread I’m going with the conventional atheist’s view of the God in which they don’t believe, i.e., semi-translucent all-powerful but otherwise humanlike omnipotent hurler of divine commands that get instantaneously obeyed.
I would think the people who don’t “believe in free will” could choose to play along in a similar way. I think the OP could help by specifying both terms to some extent. But, words being words and all that, there would still be room for someone to argue and counterposit stuff.
I’m not the OP but I think it isn’t unreasonable to simplify as “Here’s a hypothetical: there’s world peace but you don’t get to make your own choices and/or act on them, you are rigidly controlled. You up for that, or no?”
I would happily give up everyone else’s free will.
That’s the root cause of the problem, don’t you know?
So, a voice in my head asks me to vote? I’d assume I was slipping away from reality and possibly take my own life preemptively.
Rejecting a premise is not the same thing as fighting a hypothecial. The problem with the premise here is that we don’t all know what god is, and we don’t all know what free will is.
Of course OP is welcome to set up a hypothetical, but then they must specify the hypothetical that they are interested in. In other words, they (or you) must define exactly what they mean by “God” and “free will”.
I agree that most people think they know what free will is, it derives from the strong intuition that we could have done otherwise in identical circumstances. But this intuition does not stand up to scrutiny. What evidence is there that anyone could ever have done otherwise? How is an alternative course of action “generated” in your brain that is neither deterministic nor random? Deterministic factors will not generate an alternative course of action unless the inputs change; and rolling a dice (purely random factors) do not comport with our intuition of free will. What else is there?
I would argue that our intuition is wrong, our strong sense that we could have done otherwise is an illusion. The intuitive concept of free will is “not even wrong”, it’s not something that might be true or false, it’s not something that we might or might find a mechanism for. It doesn’t exist in the sense that it’s not an objectively observed phenomenon, and it’s not coherently defined.
You are projecting your own discomfort. I find the realization that my intuition of free will is false disconcerting, sure. It’s deeply weird. But I see nothing “sad” about it. I’m fine with the knowledge that I do things for good reasons, with a sprinkling of purely random whimsy, and not by some undefined magical process.
I guess I ought to stay out, then, because I reject the existence of any G/god(s). But I’m willing to accept the existence of an all-powerful mystical sky pixie for the purposes of the hypo. But as a rational humanist who rejects the supernatural, I’ve long had difficulty with the concept of free will. I sure FEEL like I have it, and I wish myself and others to be held accountable for what appears to result from it. But seeing as I believe everything in all of our heads results from electrical discharges, where does the magic occur that transforms those discharges into something I can control thru my will? But I’ve come to the conclusion that resolving that is beyond my capability, so I am content to continue to exist acting as though I have free will - whether it is an illusion or not.
So let’s accept the premises of God and free will. What does it mean TO ME to bring about world peace? As someone mentioned, will I continue to have the illusion of free will (which may be all I have currently?) If so, that makes it more appealing.
But what will MY LIFE - and the lives of others - be like with world peace? Will I derive any specific benefit from the fact that people somewhere else aren’t killing each other? Will I - and the US/world economy - be better off if we didn’t have to spend as much on the military? Or, will we be worse off, if all the military companies wen’t belly up?
I hate to sound so crass, but I’m not sure how much I am adversely affected on a day-to-day basis by the LACK of world peace.
Also, to bring about world peace, what would be involved? Would God eliminate all religions - or make everyone believe the same one? Would they eliminate all other ethnic/cultural differences which have historically caused strife?
Sorry - the question just impresses me as pretty meaningless without considerable elaboration.
This is my problem with the offered deal. If my will is not my own, then whose is it? It can’t be another human being, or else that person could potentially set themselves up as The Biggest Pervert in History, or something, defeating the whole purpose.
So it must be God’s will; but what exactly is that? Old Testament God was a bit of a dick, New Testament God is a bit wishy-washy when not being a dick. What happens when we make this deal, and then it turns out he wants us all to walk around wearing slices of Spam on our heads?
And what if it isn’t even that God? Anyone want to give Jupiter free reign like that?
No. And I say this as a strict pacifist, just … no.
We should have peace because people have gotten better, not because they stopped being people.
Well, since we’re accepting the biblical God for the purposes of the OP’s hypothetical situation, we have to look at the Garden of Eden. According to the story, God WANTED his children to have an idyllic life in a pristine environment but, because He gave them free will, he did not stop them from eating fruit from the Tree of Knowledge even though He gave them a dire warning against doing so. I interpret this as meaning that God’s will was for us to have the former, but he accepts the latter because He gave us the ability to make our choices.
All that being said, it implies that, were we to turn ourselves over to God’s WILL, we would have a Garden of Eden scenario in which in which the only behavior we could ever exhibit would be as idyllic as our environment.
No, we don’t.
And a lot of us who say that they know what God is disagree with each other on the subject.
Oh yes indeed.
It would be possible to simultaneously achieve world peace, and remove all human free will, simply by killing all humans. I don’t like that solution; but I see no guarantee that that isn’t how the combination would be accomplished.
For purposes of this thread, God is the manner in which free will is removed and world peace established. It’s a hypothetical!
No, I don’t. It’s a completely incoherent concept, and any definition when closely examined crumbles away to nothing.
Well, the OP is vaguely implying it’s the biblical god, but that’s not abundantly clear to me. “Why is there evil in the world?” seems to be a question most religions struggle with, not just the Abrahamic ones. So who knows what this particular God might want?