If god knows what we are going to do he has no right to reward the good and punish the wicked. Discuss.

answered prayer and the justice of God but may be punished by bad fortune. Augustine writes ‘God is sovereign and human beings have free will. Free will has been weakened through sin. God foresees what human beings will do.’ It may be suggested that a good God should reward and punish to give people an incentive to be a good person. However this may mean that being a good person could be used as a vice. One could argue that If God was not able to do this, people may not learn from their mistakes. Although this may be an answer for this problem, it could be said that God should not reward and punish as it may lead to religious morality being selfish; people may only act virtuously to be rewarded in heaven. The concept of heaven and hell as a reward and punishment is quite problematic. Hell not only seems to be a very harsh reality, but this concept also clashes with the goodness of God. This extreme divine justice is incompatible with the idea of an all loving and perfectly good God. It is written in Chronicles that ‘He is good; his love endures for ever’. However the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah in divine punishment for their wickedness, Gods participation in the Battle of Jericho and Noah and the flood all challenge the belief of Gods omnibenevolence and therefore his right to reward and punish. 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 understanding where another may conflict a certain idea. This idea may also have fault as it may be considered to limit God by challenging his omniscience in order for humans to have free will. If God is the greatest being that anyone is able to conceive as proposed by Anselm then God should have no limitations. Calvin states that ‘human beings are sinful and fallen. God who is omniscient wills the elect to be saved’ Supporters may view the idea of heaven and hell to not affect God’s omniscience or omnibenevolence. They may suggest that all these features are required for God to have and for humans to act accordingly to God’s commands. Boethius (480-525) highlights the incompatibility of eternity and foreknowledge by creating a dialogue between himself and Lady Philosophy in ‘The Consolidation of Philosophy’. Boethius suggests that the many problems include that if what God foresees in the future will inevitably happen then our actions may become irrelevant. If God does not cause our actions they are still necessary and we have no other choice. He suggests that it may be pointless to punish and reward if this is predestined, that if actions are foreseen by God then he is responsible and that prayer may be without point. The strength of Boethius’ idea is that he provides a solution for problems that he has recognised. Lady Philosophy states that all of time is what God would call ‘now’; God sees all things in an eternal present. Boethius also argued that God is outside of time and therefore cannot be subject to such things that are within time. Anthony Kenny provides a critical assessment of this. He argues that the idea of all time being eternally present to God does not make sense. It could be countered that this incoherency may only be because humans are not capable of understanding such great things. A further criticism is that God being outside of time is hard to relate to. It brings up the idea that if he is outside of time how is he aware of what is occurring within time? It is also important to consider when debating this point that this knowledge may support the immutability of God. The middle knowledge of God is also deemed as important to assess the outcome if a human’s choice had been different. This all relates to idea of Gods ability to reward and punish. If God is outside of time then it is logically coherent to believe that he cannot affect what is within time, however, it could be stated that God’s omnipotence is greater than all things. God can do anything that is logically and illogically possible. In conclusion, God’s ability to punish and reward is evident within the scriptures and within the life of humans, as religious believers would believe. Although this may provide problems with many of God’s attributes, it could be argued that rewarding and punishment is important to any human to allow them to learn and grow, similar to that of a parent.