The free will argument has been used to discredit the existence of God. It is a complex theory that has several multifaceted points of view. First, it should be noted that the Christian God is regarded as omnipotent or all-knowing. He is considered to be a personal being with free will. However, to possess a free will, one must have more than a single option each of which can be avoided. Therefore, before one makes a choice, they experience a state of uncertainty hence unable to know their future. However, an omniscience being cannot claim to experience a state of uncertainty because they know their choices in advance. It, therefore, lacks any potential to avoid the options at its disposal. Proponents of this argument therefore not that free will cannot coexist with omniscience; thus the Christian God does not exist. However, the compatibilism argument for the existence of God debunks these assertions by intimating that free will and omniscience can coexist with one another. God possesses foreknowledge which is not responsible for the actualization of any event thus allowing for the harmonious relationship between free will and omniscience.
The argument from free will is also known as the paradox of free will. The argument debunks the existence of God from the point of view that omniscience and free will are two concepts that cannot merge or coexist. Therefore, conceiving God based on an idea that incorporates the two principles leads to a logical flaw that rules out the existence of God. It is generally accepted that human beings have free will and God has omniscience, a characteristic that allows him to know everything even before they happen (McCall, 2011). Christians primarily regard God as a personal being. This means that he is a deity that is related to a person rather than an impersonal force. The personal being of God knows everything contrary to the requirements of free will which states that there has to be a state of uncertainty. Humans with free will have more than one option each of which must be avoidable. Therefore, when a choice is taken, there is a period of uncertainty where they cannot determine the future. However, because God is omniscience, he does not have any ability to avoid the choices at their disposal. As such, God lacks free will. Proponents of this theory argue that since God lacks a free will, he cannot again claim to know everything. From this point of view, the Christian God is nonexistent.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
As previously noted, the basis of this argument is from the point of view that free will and omniscience cannot be compatible. One theory that debunks the free will argument against the existence of good is known as the compatibilism. According to the school of thought, foreknowledge and free will are compatible with one another. One of the inferences made from the perspective is the fact that God does not assert a causal influence on his creations. Instead, he has foreknowledge, which does not play a role in the actualization of any event. In the end, his foreknowledge should, therefore, have a harmonious relationship with the free will. The fact that God is omniscient refers to the fact that he knows and understands every possible outcome of a given event including whether or not it will occur (Shenhav et al., 2012). The compatibility perspective continues to argue that omniscience and free will can merge in the context of God because he is a supreme being. The Supreme Being is not affected by time. He operates independently of time meaning that he can see the future without necessarily having constraints that emanate from the free will.
The proponents of the free will argument against the existence of God assume wrongly that God has time constraints the same way as humans do. However, this assumption is not correct. Instead, time is a creation of God, hence cannot constraint him in whatever form or shape. Despite its flaws, the free will argument that debunks the existence of God has been defended from various points of view. The first form of defense is given from the libertarianism point of view. Libertarianism is essentially a critique of compatibilism. It rejects any idea that attempts to assert the coexistence between free will and foreknowledge. According to the proponents of this perspective, God's omniscience is viewed as everything that can be known except the foreknowledge. The theoretical perspective argues that although omniscient is a significant characteristic of God, the power of knowledge has no place in the personal being. It, therefore, debunks any compatibility between free will and foreknowledge hence discrediting the position of God (Shenhav et al., 2012). Libertarianism also discredits another theory that explains the position of God known as determinism. Determinism argues that all happen in the future are determined by preexisting causes.
However, it should be noted that libertarianism philosophy that supports the perspective that free will and foreknowledge cannot merge has several elements that make it flawed reasoning. The first flaw associated with this defense of free will is the fact that the freedom intimated by the libertarians would make God fail to show responsibility for his action. It should be noted that God makes choices based on his holy status. According to the compatibilist argument, God will always act based on his nature and never against it. However, the libertarians tend to argue that God has the freedom to act in contrary to his nature. This would mean that he would be bound to perform sin, a factor that would go contrary to his characteristics as God. The second logical area seen in libertarianism's point of view revolves around the principles outlined by the Holy Bible (McCall, 2011). The argument does not have a Biblical bearing. It is without any doubt that God is omniscient and all-knowing. He has the power of time and can thus know the future without any significant limitations. Since the Bible is regarded as a holy text, any argument that contradicts it is regarded as flawed.
Other than the libertarianism argument, the free will logic receives backing from Alvin Plantinga's free-will defense. The argument fundamentally deals with the three main characteristics of God including omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence and relates them to the position of evil in the world. The proponent of this argument makes several inferences beginning with the first one that states that although God is omnipotent; his nature restricts him from doing certain things, thereby lacking the free will. Since God would never choose evil, he lacks the free will. The theory continues by saying that a God who is all-knowing, all-powerful, and morally perfect should not allow evil to exist in the world. He should identify and mitigate the occurrence of evil even before it acquires shape (Eliade, 2013). The free-will defense here thus uses the position of the evil to discredit the possibility that foreknowledge and free will can exist together. If God has the foreknowledge, then he should be in an excellent position to find evil and mitigate it. If evil continues to exist in the world, it is, therefore, either God acknowledges it through the foreknowledge but lacks the free will to deal with it. It could also conversely mean that God has the free will but lacks the prior knowledge to manage the evil.
Also, this theoretical point of view can be criticized on several accounts. First, it looks at the compatibility problem from a narrow point of view which includes the position of evil. The existence of evil does cannot or does not in any way limit or reduce the powers of God. It is indeed true that God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and morally perfect. He is aware of the existence of evil and has the free will to determine where to annihilate it or not. It, however, depends on his relationship with humans (McCall, 2011). As agents with free will, humans have the option to make a choice between God and evil. When they chose God, they get all the aspects promised in the scriptures. On the other hand, if they chose evil, they suffer the wrath outlined in the Bible. Therefore, based on the free will of humans, the presence of evil cannot be used as a way of discrediting the compatibility between free will and foreknowledge.
In conclusion, God possesses foreknowledge which is not responsible for the actualization of any event thus allowing for the harmonious relationship between free will and omniscience. The free will argument against the existence of God debunks the existence of the Christian God by asserting that free will cannot merge with omniscience or the characteristic of all-knowing. However, it can be debunked by the compatibilism perspective which states that foreknowledge and free will are compatible with one another. The free will perspective is further supported by the libertarianism and the from Alvin Plantinga's free-will defense which essentially refutes any claims of the coexistence between free will and omniscience. However, these arguments come short of logic based on the evidence from the scriptures that prove otherwise.
References
Eliade, M. (2013). The quest: History and meaning in religion. University of Chicago Press.
McCall, S. (2011). The supervenience of truth: free will and omniscience. Analysis, 71(3), 501-506.
Shenhav, A., Rand, D. G., & Greene, J. D. (2012). Divine intuition: Cognitive style influences belief in God. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(3), 423.
