• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

'God is omniscient so therefore we cannot have free will(TM) Discuss.

Extracts from this document...


'God is omniscient so therefore we cannot have free will' Discuss. The God of classical theism has many attributes including that of being omnipotent. By this we understand God to be all powerful and have no limits. This is that God is all powerful and have no limits. God is also regarded to be eternal in other words not affected by time and transcendent meaning God is above and beyond earthly existence. Further attributes of the God of classical theism are he is flawless as he is perfect and possesses the highest good and finite attributes and omniscience which means God has the ability to know everything. God being omniscient presents a dilemma that I will expand upon in this essay. The problem is that if God knows all things throughout time (as he must, if he is omniscient), then he knows every action I perform, every decision I make throughout my life, before make them. If God knows what I am going to do, then how can I do anything other than that? This raises the questions of whether we then are morally to blame for doing wrong actions or whether we were simply determined to do this action, if so there can be no sense of punishment or blame. This then implies that people such as Hitler cannot blamed for their actions because they were simply pre determined. ...read more.


Morality would be reduced to how well an action measured to our conditional preferences. Another approach towards the idea of freedom is Libertarianism. This is the view that we have complete responsibility for the actions we make as each of us are autonomous moral agents. Liberationists believe we have free will and determinism is incorrect. Jean Paul Sartre (1905- 1980) believed that freedom is the goal and measure of our lives. David Hume also argued that hard determinism commits a post hoc fallacy in saying that for example that as in nature event B consistently follows event A, this implies event A is the cause of event B. A counter view to both of the stances is the Compatablist approach which is to say that free will and determinism can both exist. Compatabilists believe our actions are determined but that we are still morally responsible. A possible answer to the dilemma of omniscience and free will. Libertarians believe we are free to choose from an open future, since the future has not yet happened it does not exist in reality. Something that does not exist cannot be known, only predicted. This is a limitation of time, not God. God has given us free choice so that we can chose our destiny even though he can predict what our destiny might be. ...read more.


Nobody knows which group they are in. People were to act good because it was a sign of the elect group and a person from the elect would want to be good. I am not able to reconcile the concept of a benevolent God with the idea that God would decide our fate before even knowing us. Moreover, it does not seem just that a moral person could end up in hell just because they were in the dammed group. I believe our future destiny should rely on our own free will and choice's in life, even if God already knows our destiny. In conclusion, I believe the best solution is that of the Libertarians that the future is not fact therefore God cannot know but predict. I do believe we are determined and can be manipulated but I still believe we have a sense of free will, When I make a decision I feel as though I'm making it for myself and even if this could be determined. I don't think it makes much of a difference in that I wanted to chose this decision either way. I don't think the dilemma here can ever be answered successfully as it seems the God's omniscience by definition is what changes. From God being all knowing to what God can know that is possible. God in the view of Anselm being 'the greatest possible being' to me should mean he is an eternalist and knows everything regardless of time. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Philosophy section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Philosophy essays

  1. "Religious Language is meaningless." Discuss.

    Both have similar experiences on the journey. One sees these experiences as gifts from God, while the other sees them as just luck or misfortune. Only when the two people reach their destination will they know the truth". This parable asks the question as to how it could be verified

  2. If God knows everything there is no such thing as free will. Discuss

    It can be argued that God has knowledge of everything except the future. However, this creates further problems about God's attributes. If he can't know the future then his omnipotence is limited.

  1. Conscience is the voice of God - discuss

    An answer to this type of question was given by the nineteenth-century American radical, Henry Thoreau. In his essay 'Civil Disobedience', Thoreau wrote, "It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right".

  2. An embodied life in heaven is entirely possible. Discuss.

    There are two main theories that have implications for indicative survival after death; dualism and materialism. Dualism Mind-Body Dualism assumes the existence of two distinct principles of being in the universe: spirit and matter, or soul and body. Dualism (philosophical understanding of the term)

  1. God is most clearly revealed to humanity through scripture. Discuss

    Non-Proposionalists believe we should interpret the stories within the bible to properly understand them as they are often written with symbolism and maybe metaphorical.

  2. Ethical language is meaningless. Discuss.

    This was also developed by Stevenson who questions why someone?s feelings can be better than someone else?s. What emotivism does is draw attention to the reasons why people have different views and then let others decided. But it has been shown in history that getting people to act using emotive speeches may have unfortunate results i.e.

  1. The Concept of Life After Death is Incoherent - Discuss.

    Common descriptions were to see a light in darkness with an overwhelming sense of love, as though they were being cradled by God. Whilst this argument would give more evidence to there being life after death, there simply is no way of proving that this does happen.

  2. Philosophy - analysis of Nietzsche, Sartre and Tolstoy

    The mover would be the power that created the first elements and condition that allowed for a single celled organism to develop. QUESTION 22: What does Sartre mean when he says that, in our case, ?existence precedes essence?, and what do the consequences he draw from this fact (forlorness, aguish, despair)

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work