The 's Argument For The Free Will

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

In respect to the arguments of Ayer and Holbach, the dilemma of determinism and its compatibility with that of free will are found to be in question. Holbach makes a strong case for hard determinism in his System of Nature, in which he defines determinism to be a doctrine that everything and most importantly human actions are caused, and it follows that we are not free and therefore haven’t any moral responsibility in regard to our actions. For Ayer, a compatibilist believing that free will is compatible with determinism, it is the reconciliation and dissolution of the problem of determinism and moral responsibility with free willing that is argued. Ayer believes that

This sounds like he is simply speaking in circles about the subject. He tries to say that God knows about the future, but he knows about our free will, which will give us the power to decide things, but in the end is also foreknown by God. This is where I start to defer from his beliefs, since I believe that free will is the cause of evil, but that God should be taken out of the equation. While it can argued that God only knows of all the possibilities and not what will directly happen, which would make it so that he is providing free will and is part of a triangle relation between himself, free will, and evil, it is simply much more logical to believe that if there is a God, then there is no free will, and if that is such, God is the originator of evil.

Our actions do make a big part of that decision taken by him, but as ´´The God that holds you over the pit of hell…´´ expresses, you hang from a tiny string which is your actions, bad deeds gets your string cut and good deeds keeps your string tight and

As Boethius continues to deliberate upon the problem of good and evil, they come to the discussion of Providence and Fate. Philosophy begins by defining both and underlining the difference between them. She defines Providence as God's ultimate, unchanging plan, which is divine and eternal. Where as, Fate is the way things play out. Unlike Providence, Fate is subject to change and effected by fortune.

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

The classical understanding of God's relationship with time, eternity, and his knowledge of the future, as exemplified by Classical thinkers such as Boethius, Aquinas, and others, creates problems in regards to creaturely freedom. The question is typically phrased, "Since God is never wrong, if God knows at one moment that one of his creatures will perform some act at a moment which will occur after the moment he knew of the act, then will his creature perform this act?" I maintain that God does not know the future, because, first, God's knowledge of the future destroys creaturely freedom, second, God is always ever Creating, and, finally, the future is not knowable.

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.

First, many theologians have assumed that if God is all-powerful, omnipotent, which the Bible clearly teaches (e.g., 1Chron 29:11; Jer 32:17; Mt 19:26; Rev 1:8; 19:6), that nothing in his creation can ever thwart his will. At the very least, it is reasoned, God

To answer this question it must be taken into account that God gives created wills “the potential for rectitude” (OCV 4.307). God is a phenomenon that accompanies sin and wickedness. The act of something being wicked though, is assigned to a creature. Because we have free will, we may choose not to act upon the rectitude that is offered to us by God, which will lead us to stray away from his goodness and thus leads us to commit sin. An objection to this one of Ockham’s claims comes from Scotus. Scotus claims that, “ God wills that all men be save” (OCV 4. 307) Scotus believes that God’s antecedent will, that one which God wills salvation for all men, wills goods for people who can achieve salvation. Ockham rejects this claim by stating that, “Scotus's theory of instants of nature-a theory that allows the conceptual division of a single instant of time into more than one instant of nature, so that God can cause rectitude antecedently, but not consequently, in a logically (but not temporally) prior instant” (OCV 4.

God sees and knows all the was, is, is to come, and the might have beens. I would like to use Moses as an example. When the Israelites were wandering the desert and complaining on the way to Canaan Moses disobeyed God by striking a rock instead of speaking to it. This was done out of frustration and cost him the victory of entering into the promised land with the israelites. God knew what was going to happen and the punishment that had ensued. God also knew the reward had Moses spoke to the rock as God had commanded. (Grudem 87).

This illusion is also quite visible as we are sharing my testimonies; I even caught myself saying this yesterday. I was talking about a decision I made to purchase a horse, and I said, “I knew when I bought Boe that I would eventually have to give him up again.” However, when I bought Boe, I was not planning on being a Missions major and moving to Africa. Therefore, I fell prey to the hindsight illusion and the declaration that I knew something when in fact I did not. This illusion places our humanity on a pedestal when we examine what we think we knew about the future and when we think about what God knows about both the past and future. While we, as humans, will never be able to completely know the past, let alone the future, God more deeply understands all time than we can

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