If feeling free is enough grounds for people to say we have free will it is not grounds for saying God has given us free will.

To say we feel free and are free should be about elevating human dignity not elevating God.

A loving God cannot ask us to believe in the doctrines that go with his teaching of free will if the basis for free will belief is a feeling.  For example, evil and suffering are problems if there is a God and they are extremely grave ones.  You cannot say free will is to blame for you feel free therefore you are free for that amounts to saying all that should happen just because you feel and want to feel you have free will. 


Religion says we have free will but only because of God and not in spite of him. So it follows that sin as an attempt to defy God does not succeed. So sin is not really so much evil as an attempt. We see another example of how religion keeps being unintelligible. We are told we have free will to do evil and that is why there is suffering and none of that has anything to do with God. Then we are told he is creator of all and we cannot create our free acts of evil out of nothing unless he does it for us.
Some say, "The power of men and women to sin is a freedom to defy the will of God. But this is only in their heads and hearts. They cannot actively change or defeat the will of God or do anything about how God works." So opposition is only inside not out for God creates and rules all that is outside of you. But if God makes us free because of him then this straitjacket is internal as well.
All that shows that free will even if it comes from God is still not free will and our feeling of freedom is lying to us. We are far from as free as we feel. The big lie suggests we do not have free will.

Inability to prove that free will exists, proves that the idea of sin, using free will to defy the will of God, is nonsense. It proves God cannot exist and is loathsome if he does. To honour God is to honour what is loathsome. It is a loathsome thing to do. Indeed the idea of God has made many people loathsome.

When we reward a criminal with retribution, this is hatred for we cannot prove free will. We are punishing him not because we believe he has to pay with suffering for abusing his free will the way he has but because we feel he is free. To hurt a person because you feel like it, is hatred even if the person deserves it. God religion stakes everything on a feeling, namely that people have free will as a gift from God. It is totally absurd when based on such a pathetic insulting foundation.
Why does anybody want to defend belief in free will? Well it starts with feeling we are free.

The person who makes errors of logic and thinks free will exists to the degree that we are fully to blame for our part in the terrible things we get up to is a slanderer. Just because you think you have free will because you feel free does not give you the right to say that if somebody does something terrible that it is their own fault. You are condemning a person because of how you feel free! It is cruel to think that feeling free is enough for you to accuse harm doers of being wilfully evil. Even if we have free will, that does not mean that the evil we do consciously is mainly or only our fault.
The person who accuses you of having free will because he feels he has it is far worse. It is like accusing somebody of murder just because you feel they did it. Do you really have the right to assume that other people feel as free as you do? What if many people feel free but also feel this feeling does not prove they are free?
Free will is thought to support the notion that we can love. It does not. It supports the view that we are only kidding ourselves when we love for we don't really.
To be an atheist and believe in free will is bad enough. But to say free will is a gift from God is hypocrisy and blasphemy and demeaning and no scale can ever measure how hideous it is.

The Amplified Bible
A CONCISE INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY, William H Halverson, Random House, N.Y. 1967
BASIC PHILOSOPHICAL ANALYSIS, Charles C Reid, Dickenson, CA, 1971
BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL, Friedrich Nietzsche, Penguin, London, 1990
CONTROVERSY: THE HUMANIST CHRISTIAN ENCOUNTER Hector Hawton, Pemberton Books, London, 1971
DOING AWAY WITH GOD? Russell Stannard, Marshall Pickering, London, 1993
ETHICS, KEY CONCEPTS IN PHILOSOPHY, Dwight Furrow, Continuum, New York, 2005 chapter 7
FREE TO DO RIGHT, David Field IVP London, 1973
GOD A GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED Keith Ward, OneWorld, Oxford, 2003
GOD AND THE NEW PHYSICS, Paul Davies, Penguin Books, London, 1990
HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS, Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Monarch, East Sussex, 1995
MORAL PHILOSOPHY Joseph Rickaby SJ, Stonyhurst Philosophy Series, Longmans, Green and Co, London, 1912
MORTAL QUESTIONS, Thomas Nagel, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1979
ON THE TRUTH OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH, BOOK ONE, GOD, St Thomas Aquinas, Image Doubleday and Co, New York, 1961
PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEMS AND ARGUMENTS, James W. Cornman and Keith Lehrer, 2nd Edition, Macmillan Network, 1974
PHILOSOPHY – THE PURSUIT OF WISDOM, Louis P Pojman, Wadsworth, California, 1994
RADIO REPLIES VOL 1, Frs Rumble & Carty, Radio Replies Press, St Paul, Minnesota, 1938
RADIO REPLIES VOL 2, Frs Rumble & Carty, Radio Replies Press, St Paul, Minnesota, 1940
RADIO REPLIES VOL 3, Frs Rumble & Carty, Radio Replies Press, St Paul, Minnesota, 1942
REASON AND RELIGION, Anthony Kenny, Basil Blackwell Ltd, Oxford, 1987
RELIGION IS REASONABLE, Thomas Corbishley SJ, Burns & Oates Ltd, London, 1960
THE BIG QUESTIONS, Simon Blackburn, Quercus Books, London, 2009
THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS OF PHILOSOPHY, AC Ewing, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1985
THE REALITY OF GOD AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL, Brian Davies, Continuum, London-New York, 2006
THE SATANIC BIBLE, Anton Szandor LaVey, Avon Books, New York, 1969


No Copyright