NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... Also, if God lives within our linear time, he cannot know what we will do in the future. The future cannot depend on the past. For example, it is a fact that the Titanic sank before World War II. World War II happening depends on the Titanic sinking. However, it does not make sense to say that World War II is a cause of the Titanic sinking.
The argument does not make sense and hence, God could not have divine foreknowledge while existing in linear time as humans do because foreseeing the future cannot hinge on knowledge of past events. However, the objections to the timeless eternity theory of resolving divine foreknowledge and free will do not work. Objectors claim that if God exists outside of time then he cannot act within time and therefore he is not the God people perceive him to be. This is not a very convincing argument. According to the method of timeless eternity, God exists in a dimension of time that is not concurrent with our own perceptions of time. Simply because we cannot understand the nature of existence that God dwells in does not change the fact that he can know what is happening to us two days from now at the same time knowing what happened yesterday and today.
In the timeless eternity solution, God exists outside of time and is all knowing. However, because he exists outside of time, he does not know the future, giving people freedom. Thus, the argument does not hold under closer investigation. The other objection to the divine eternity solution was that God has repeatedly acted in human history, seemingly influencing events. The Prayer of Hannah is discussed here as a prime example, where Hannah prayed for a child and subsequently the Lord heard her prayer and granted her a child.
Under closer investigation in class, however, it was concluded that if God willed her conception to occur after her prayer, then it was because of her prayer. God, in his all-knowing ness, knew she would ask for a child and so temporally ordered her conception to occur after her plea. Since God is outside of time and all knowing, he can place his actions in order in human beings linear time, thus proving the argument against the timeless eternity solution false again. Throughout the history of man there has been a long debate about divine foreknowledge and free will, and whether or not the two can logically coexist.
Two of the stronger solutions to this dilemma have been discussed earlier, the timeless eternity solution and the solution of Luis de Molina. These two solutions approach the dilemma in very different ways and both have their supporters and opponents. The Molinist solution appeals to humans basic idea that free choices should not be predestined. The timeless eternity solution appeals to the devout theist, and their lives commitment to an all-perfect being. Either of these solutions could be considered correct, as they are only theoretical solutions to a rhetorical question. Which solution one chooses to believe in, however, is primarily left open to ones beliefs in and relationship to God. (Hume, p. 231) Any way one chooses to approach the problem of evil, one quality of God (omnipotence, benevolence, or omniscience) must be removed from the equation. (Swinburne, p. 212) Some may want to argue that God cannot be understood from a human level (after all, He created us).
But, if we are created in God's image, our ideas and standards of what is good or bad and right or wrong must be very similar to His. If God had created human beings that always chose the good on every occasion, He would be the cause of their behavior. It would have been God who made man come into a personal relationship with Him. God as we understand Him to be is benevolent, our creator, the source of all that is good in the universe, and therefore the greatest good. Therefore, the ultimate choice for good one could make would be to have a personal relationship with God.
However, if God created humans to always make this choice, they would no longer be free in relation to Him. There is a contradiction in saying that God causes us to choose something and that we are free in relation to Him. True love is possible only where there is freedom. Take, for example, a man who wants to marry a certain girl he knows. The girl is not at all interested in him and has no desire to be with him.
The man may force her to marry, and inform her that she will love him. The man knows in his heart that she does not really love him and the girl is probably filled with bitterness and resentment, quite the opposite from the desired outcome. Now, consider a man and his girlfriend. The man asks the girlfriend to marry him and she consents because she loves him. Theirs is a relationship where love can grow and flourish. Thus because God loves us He gave us the choice to decide whether to follow Him or not.
The second objection is due to confusion over the exact definition of free will. If decisions are random and not determined by the will, then they have no value. However, it is not true that our every action is determined by heredity and environment. It would be foolish to say that our actions are completely free, that habit, our emotions, external stimuli, our genetic likes and dislikes do not have some influence on our behavior. Free will does not mean an action without cause or motive. The very nature of the will demands that a motive be present.
Freedom does not mean an absence of influences, rather that these influences do not force one to decide a certain way, but that one can select between the influences. Free will is the self in action. Some may argue that we are not always conscious of all the influences upon us all the time and that if we only knew this or that unconscious motivation then our behavior would be explainable by cause and free will would be eliminated. If I feel like doing harm to someone, though I know not why, I can still choose not to. If one's moral character is known, the choices they make, when examined closely, are likely to be predictable and not random. Thus free will is not random, not completely determined, but necessary for the development of moral character.
The third objection to the free will defense is the paradox of omnipotence. The argument that if God makes laws that He is bound by or makes laws by which He is not bound, or that He cannot control human behavior makes Him not all-powerful can be easily explained. ). For example, a janitor does not sweep a room after a lecture. His boss can tell him that he needs to do his job and sweep the room. However, his supervisor cannot both demand that he sweep the room and not sweep the room at the same time. This is not something that can be done or left undone.
The fact that the janitor "cannot" both sweep the room and not sweep the room does not mean he is physically incapable of doing it or that he is limited in the way he would be if he had no arms. To say that God is not omnipotent because He does not nurture moral character while simultaneously preventing freedom of choice is like saying the janitor was in some way limited. Another example of how God maintains our ability to choose while remaining omnipotent can be found in observing a mother's actions. She may tell her son that she wants his room to be kept clean every night before he goes to bed. She might say that she is not going to come up every night and check it, that she expects him to be responsible. She goes up to his room a few weeks later and finds papers scattered all over and the room a huge mess.
She would prefer that her son keep his room clean, yet it was her will which allowed him to be untidy. This illustrates the fact that God can in a sense make laws by which He is bound, but it is by His choice. He could alter them if He so chooses. In spite of all the opposing arguments, God can be and is omnipotent, benevolent, and omniscient. Free will is the only option that allows love and moral character to grow. Some may say they don't agree with this statement, and, by exercising the gift of free will, continue to separate themselves from God.
This separation is the source of evil in the world, and the cause of suffering. The problem of evil lies in human choice, not in Gods capabilities, or lack thereof. Words Count: 3, 146. Bibliography: St. Anselm, The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God, in Klemke, E. D. (ed) To believe or not to believe, Hardcore Brace, 1992, pp 20 - 22.
Alvin Plantinga, A Contemporary Modal Version of the Ontological Argument in Peterson, M. et al, Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, 2001, pp. 170 - 183. David Hume, The Cosmological Argument from the Dialogues concerning natural religion, in Klemke, pp. 87 - 89. Richard Taylor, A contemporary version of the cosmological argument, in Peterson et al, pp. 187 - 195. Alistair MacIntyre, Which God ought we to obey? In Peterson et al, pp. 575 - 583.
William James, The will to believe, in Peterson et al, pp. 86 - 94. David Hume, God and the Problem of Evil, in Rowe & Wainwright, pp 224 - 233. Richard Swinburne, The Problem of evil, in Swinburne, R. The Existence of God, Clarendon, 1979, pp. 200 - 224. Alvin Plantinga, The Free will defense, in Peterson et al, pp. 274 - 300. Charles Taliaferro, Devine Power, in Taliaferro, C.
Contemporary Philosophy of Religion, Blackwell, 1998, pp. 61 - 83.
Free research essays on topics related to: problem of evil, moral character, philosophy of religion, existence of god, world war ii
Research essay sample on World War Ii Problem Of Evil
