Questions The Necessity Of Free Will And Its Compatibility With Divine Foreknowledge

In this paper I will present an argument against free will and then I will defend a response to that argument. Free will is defined as having the ability to make our own choices. Some will argue that all of our decisions have already been dictated by our desires therefore we never actually truly make our own choices. The purpose of this paper is to defend the argument that we have free will by attacking the premise that states we have no control over what we desire. I will defeat this premise by showing how one does have control over his/her desires through the idea of self-control. I will then defend my argument against likely rebuttals that state that there is still no way to control our desires proving that we do have free will.

Determinism is a doctrine suggesting that for every event there exist conditions that could cause no alternative event. Free will is a philosophical term describing a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. Understandably, the dichotomy between these two concepts is a topic philosophers have debated over for many years. As a result of these debates, a number of alternative philosophical perspectives arguing for the existence of free will, namely libertarianism and compatibilism, have emerged, existing in stark contrast to determinism. In order to ascertain the extent to which free will is compatible with determinism, one must first consider these different approaches to

Nasseli, Andrei. "Do We Have Free Will?" Reformation21. N.p., Aug. 2009. Web. 25 Apr. 2015..

Over the years, both philosophers and average people alike have contemplated the concept of free will. Usually, people would not contemplate free will. The common man usually just makes choices and does not wonder if this choice is truly a free one. Like many principles, the question of free will is not answered in consensus. This leads to the question “what are humans able to do?” Van Iwagen discusses free will in his essay The Powers of Rational Beings. He states that free will and determinism brings about a mystery.

He believed that we had to have the deepest form of faith. I believe the same is true when discussing free will and God’s existence. You have to have faith that through all of the bad, it is all happening for a reason. Maybe someone’s death brings a lost soul to Christ. Free will must be a part of life. We have to be able to make choices every day. So, yes, I do believe that God has to allow bad things to happen in order to allow human beings to have free will. But I also believe that the uncontrollable bad things that happen in this world are for a reason, even if we don’t always understand those

Assume determinism, the idea that the laws of nature and the state of the past are consistent with exactly one future outcome, is true.

Furthermore, this premise means either things that are going to happen are foreseen by god or what god foresees will happen. In both cases humans free will is gone or either destroyed.

Free will is something which all human’s posses. However, if God has knowledge of all the decisions we will ever make how can free will exist? Boethius confronts this question with his consolation of philosophy. He answers it by his definition of eternity and how it pertains to human’s free will. During this paper I will analyze Boethius’s argument as to why we retain our free will based upon his definition of eternity.

The power of knowing and the power of choosing combined lead one to create faults, nothing more and nothing fewer. A person, God’s creation, is made to decide and follow certain paths, and errors will be made due to the finite abilities of a person. It is a mistake to not take advantage of this freedom of the will, for it is the infinite God’s plan. Descartes’ philosophy revolves around certainty and entrustment of God, so it comes at no surprise the backbone of free will is based on belief of God. Descartes pronounces, “…it is an imperfection in me that I do not use my freedom well” (61-62, Meditations). If free will, or freedom as he states, is misused, that indicates only an imperfection in him. Full responsibility for mishaps in judgments and decisions are only caused by an individual’s finite ability given from an infinite being. Further Descartes says, “…willing is merely a matter of being, able to do or not do the same thing” (57-58, Meditations). Descartes entrusts being alive accompanies obtaining a will. Life accompanies the choice to make certain choices or rather obstain from making choices. This full throttled independence backed in God’s name shines positively in those who believe. The entrustment of the will, that everyone contains a hope of choice and deliverance of ideals if fought for accordingly. Underlining the full fleshed will is a sense

In the following essay I will describe the problem of free will and explain several different responses to the problem. These responses will be derived from the determinist, libertarian, and compatibilist views. I will end the essay by arguing that the compatibilist view seems to best address the problem of free will, but does not necessarily solve it.

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.

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

Foreknowledge seems to be the hinge upon which these questions swing. Paul told the Romans in Romans 8:27-30, “…and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined , He also called; and these whom He called, he also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.” Paul follows these statements with the basic questions being explored in this paper in Romans 8:31, “What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us?”

In this essay I will explain why I think the strongest position of the free will debate is that of the hard determinists and clarify the objection that moral responsibility goes out the door if we don’t have free will by addressing the two big misconceptions that are associated with determinists: first that determinism is an ethical system, and secondly that contrary to common belief determinists do believe in the concept of cause and effect. I will also begin by explaining my position and why I believe that the position of the indeterminist does not hold water as an argument and the third

Which will go back to where he says that we are solely responsible for our actions, whether it is the act of evil or the act of goodwill.