Divine Foreknowledge Essay

Boethius was a philosopher teaching at the end of the Roman empire, in his 40’s he was arrested for suspected conspiracy with the Eastern Roman Empire and was eventually put to death at the age of about 44/45. Whilst in prison Boethius wrote his book, ‘The Consolation of Philosophy’ where he discusses in great depth with Lady Philosophy issues with God’s omniscience. In his writings, Boethius identifies an issue with God’s foreknowledge, our personal autonomy and the impact of how we are to be judged as when we enter the life after this. He identifies that if God has foreknowledge and knows our future, He then knows what we are going to do which

An alternative problem to this theory regards God’s omnipotenence. If God is aware of our past, present and future it is then not possible for us to do anything on our own accord. Omniscience and free will are clearly incompatible. They are many resolutions to this problem; although some thinkers may believe that free will is not possible and that this is only apparent some thinkers believe that the two different states of an eternal God is a solution. Firstly, God as timeless may resolve this problem as if God is outside of time it could be interpreted that he knows what we will do but does not cause our actions as he is unchanging and outside of time. Secondly, God being everlasting may also be a solution. If God moves through time with his creation that he knows everything that is logically possible to know. God may know our actions but does not cause them. This is an important factor as one attribute of God offers

Therefore humans can be as free as their unlimited cognizance. It is in this self-consciousness that determines their highest power of thought and contradiction. We determine our own essential nature within. How free do we want to be? The chose is yours.

Freedom is not actually free because if it were free we could do what we want. We could also control our own lives. The food we eat would most likely be free. We wouldn't have to go to school. Nothing is free because even if you are your own boss you have to follow the laws or you will be even more unfree.

The question that the textbook poses at the very beginning of chapter four is, “Are you Free” (Chaffee, 2013, p. 172)? Most people would look at this question as pretty cut and dry and would answer a resounding yes. Philosophically speaking, it is not that easy of an answer. You have to be willing to look at the question with an open mind, and ask yourself if the choices you make are truly free or if they are governed by forces outside of your control.

Augustine warns against taking the Bible lieterally if it flies in the face of reason and observation. He understood why the Bible was written as it was. He rationalized that while the authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation. It must be realized that the bible was written by humans, and not necessarily a direct quote from God. Boethius similarly discusses about something that does not necessarily directly relate but does support and explain how to understand Augustine’s words. He asks how one can reconcile human freedom with the notion of an all-knowing God. If God knows what we do before we do it, how can we be said to be free agents who must accept responsibility for personal acts? The answer is to look at the problem form the point of view of God, not from the human vantage point. God lives in eternity. Eternity does not mean

Being free is symbolically constituted in your humane human head as it searches for, or listens for a good reason to do something and a plan for taking action to make it be or not be.

This strengthens the Second Way argument for now God causes the order of efficient causes, but now he is eternal and therefore knows what decision each man will make, but does not cause him to make the decision. This then leads to a balance between God's all-knowing being and man's free

This is a great blow against classic theology that describes God as all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, ect… However, the process theologians argue that God is the most-powerful being, the most-knowing being, and the most-good being that could exist. This slight change in thinking complete attacks the view of the classical theologian’s views in their perfect God. In process theology many arguments are made to fight the “all” standing of the classical Theologians. Arguments that point the inconsistency of an all-powerful and all-good God that allows evil to exist in the world. A popular response to the existence of evil is that God graced humanity with the gift of free will. However, the process theologians have asked how an all knowing God can allow free will, if he knows what everyone will choose. These two arguments against that “all” God have allowed the process to take a slightly weaker stance, the “most” God. This allows God to know the most possible, but not necessarily all future events. And therefore free will is plausible and evil can exist in a world where an extremely good and extremely powerful God also

Seemingly, when first confronted over the issue of Free Will and Divine Foreknowledge, one tends to initially think that the two are incompatible and cannot co-exist. However in the Consolation, Boethius claims that both do exist and relate to each other, in a freeing yet also in a meaningful determined way.

Foreknowledge, in the Christian sense, has been sharply debated for centuries. Though it directly means God’s prior and perfect knowledge of people and events regardless of time, it is fundamentally tied to the understanding of the elect and the competing arguments of Calvinism and Arminianism. To some, it may seem like the nature of God’s foreknowledge is high, impractical theology, but it deeply affects one’s understanding of God, which in turn affects one’s response to God. A proper understanding of God’s foreknowledge and the issues tied to it will cause one to scrutinize, and possibly shift, the basis of their faith.

From Damascene is questioning if God can truly determine what our destinations are. Damascene says “It must be borne in mind that God foreknows but does not predetermine everything, since He foreknows all that is in us but does not predetermine it all.” Damascene does not believe God can truly predetermine what happens to us even if God knows what we are capable of, that knowledge cannot be used to determine what our destinations is or what lies ahead.

Gods knowledge is not predictive but is intelligible; what is known is known with absolute certainty. Predictions involve the weighing of what is likely and what

Many contemporary philosophers have affirmed that knowing involves believing truly. And the idea that God's attributes (including omniscience/foreknowledge) are essentially connected to His nature, together with the idea that an omniscient being would hold no false beliefs and would hold beliefs about the outcome of human actions in advance of their performance, are taken as obvious candidates for inclusion in a finished Christian

This brings about the debate that if God is aware of what is going to happen, does humankind really have the free will to decide its fate? Aquinas countered this argument: If God is true and just, how could he predetermine that some of his creations would commit atrocities and therefore end up in hell? I like that he addressed this side to the argument. I have a really hard time believing that God would create people just to kill them or send them to hell just because he could. This would logically make God evil in that he would be creating things for the sole purpose of causing pain and suffering and ultimately destroying them in the end. Aquinas takes the position that God is instead timeless. He likens a human life to travelers on an open road. Aquinas takes this analogy one step farther and likens God to a hawk looking over the traveler on said road. Instead of the human, who can old see a short distance both behind and in front, the hawk can see for miles. He argues that God sees all of history all at once, rather than in “real-time” and that he is beyond