The Paradox Of Free Will

1104 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Essay about free will and freedom

To start will let’s examine the paradox of free will. Here’s one of many contradictions. You insist that you have free will. Therefore, God has no control over your actions. Therefore, God is not an all-powerful being. A God who isn’t all-powerful isn’t the most perfect being that can be conceived of. God has to be the most perfect being anyone can imagine. Therefore, there is no God. Now if God is all-powerful, even though God has granted you free will, your free will is ultimately an illusion living on somewhat borrowed time in that God can revoke that free will gift at any time He chooses and thus have His wicked way with you!

Another take is that if God exists, all His attributes must be compatible. If all God’s attributes are not compatible, God must not exist. For example, God can not have His own personal free will and be all-knowing. If God is all knowing, then God knows in advance what He will and will not do. If God knows in advance that He will not do something, then He has no free will of His own. He has no options available to Him but to not do what He knows he won’t do. …show more content…

That is, you are free to pick and choose between various alternatives, including making choices or decisions that can be described as good, or as evil; moral or immoral; ethical or otherwise. However, regarding such a free will, I would argue that you can never be 100% sure that any choice or decision that you make wasn’t due to the universal laws, principles and relations part and parcel of physical causality that started operating from Day One (the Big Bang event) and thus forever and ever predetermined. You might be 99.999% sure you have free will, and that it was God given, but I can’t figure out any way you could absolutely prove it to any outsider, or to yourself for that matter if you are honest with

Show More
Related

  • James Rachel's Article: The View Of Free Will

    992 Words  | 2 Pages

    The view of free will has been heavily debated in the field of philosophy. Whether humans possess free will or rather life is determined. With the aid of James Rachels ' article, The Debate over Free Will, it is clearly revealed that human lives are "both determined and free at the same time" (p.482, Rachels), thus, in line with the ideas of compatibilist responses. Human 's actions are based on certain situations that are causally determined by unexpected events, forced occurrence, and certain cases that causes one to outweigh the laws of cause and effect. The article also showcases instances where free will does exist. When human actions are being based on one 's emotions of the situation, desire, and simply that humans are creatures that are created to have intellectual reasoning. I argue, that Rachels’ article, provides helpful evidence on compatibilists responses that demonstrate free will and determinism actions come into play with each other.

    Read More

  • A Case for Free Will

    2065 Words  | 5 Pages

    “He has finally learned to love big brother” was how George Orwell in his novel 1984 described Winston, conversion to the party are represented by big brother at the end of the novel. It is easy to believe that at this instance, after torturous reeducation that Winston has endured, he has lost free will and no longer be able to freely choose to love big brother but was forced to, against hiss will. Therefore Winston was never free to love big brother, and in fact not free at all after his “reeducation.” But if we are to accept a definition of free will that stipulates that we are able to produce and act on our own volitions we must accept that Winston has retained and has chosen to love big brother out of his own free will.

    Read More

  • Eleonore Stump's Problem Of Evil

    1457 Words  | 3 Pages

    My first claim is, if God is all knowing, he knows where we will end up in life. Secondly, I believe when our consciousness comes into existence, God knows if we go to Heaven or Hell. Thirdly, no matter what choices we make throughout our lives, the end result will always be what it was meant to be before our existence. Therefore, no amount of free will during our time on earth, will change our end result which means our free will is

    Read More

  • The Neurology Of Free Will Analysis

    327 Words  | 1 Pages

    Angie Bachmann choose to gamble not only once but twice until it became an addiction of hers. She was aware of the choices she made and should have took responsibility of her gambling addiction. She could have taken some steps to prevent her outcome but decided not to. The Neurology Of Free Will explains “Angie Bachmann gambled not by choice, but out of habit”(254).  which clarify everybody had choices in life and had the freewill to decide what they want to do because they are conscious and know what's going on around them once you become addicted it is truly your fault for not making other choices and seeking help which became a habit to Angie to keep on doing it when it was clearly her responsibility for making good decisions and not letting an addiction get the best of her.

    Read More

  • Philosophical Exploration of Human Free Will

    1086 Words  | 3 Pages

    Choices that people make have a giant place in their lives. Most of us consider that we do these choices freely, that we have free will to make these choices. The point that most of us miss is free will is not simple as is it looks like. When one makes choices doesn’t he consider that what would that choices lead him to? Therefore does he make those choices for his benefits or his desires to make those choices? Does the environment push him to make those choices or does he have the free will to ignore his own environment? Philosopher and writes splits around those questions. There is different thesis, beliefs about free will. Some say that we are conditioned from birth with qualities of our personality, social standing and attitudes. That we do not have free will, our choices shapes up by the world we born in to. Some others believe that we born as a blank paper we could shape by the occasions or choices that we make freely. Marry Midgley on her article “Freedom and Heredity” defends that without certain limitations for instance our talents, capacities, natural feelings we would not need to use free will. Those limitations lead us to use free will and make choices freely. She continues without our limitations we do not need to use free will. Free will needs to be used according to our needs but when mentioning need not as our moral need as our needs to what could we bring up with our capacities. We need to use our free will without stereotypes. Furthermore free will should be shaped by the choice that would lead us good consequences.

    Read More

  • Comparing God, Evil, And Suffering

    715 Words  | 2 Pages

    There is evil. 3. So, God does not exist”. Since there is evil, then that means God does not exist. So there is no loving and powerful God. However, if there is a God then he is not all loving and powerful. Daniel Howard-Snyder states in his article “God, Evil, And Suffering,”: “We would have to say God lacks power and knowledge to such an extent that He can 't prevent evil. And there lies the trouble. For how could God have enough power and knowledge to create and sustain the physical universe if He can 't even prevent evil? How could He be the providential governor of the world if He is unable to do what even we frequently do, namely prevent evil?” (5). This statement argues that God is not all powerful because he is unable to prevent evil in the world. Daniel Howard-Snyder then argues that: “Would a perfectly good being always prevent evil as far as he can? Suppose he had a reason to permit evil, a reason that was compatible with his never doing wrong and his being perfect in love, what I 'll call a justifying reason. For example, suppose that if he prevented evil completely, then we would miss out on a greater good, a good whose goodness was so great that it far surpassed the badness of evil. In that case, he might not prevent evil as far as he can, for he would have a justifying reason to permit it” (5). Even if God had a reason to allow evil, he who is all loving and powerful would want the least amount of people to suffer and feel pain. Since God knows

    Read More

  • Free Will and Choices

    1530 Words  | 4 Pages

    It has been sincerely obvious that our own experience of some source that we do leads in result of our own free choices. For example, we probably believe that we freely chose to do the tasks and thoughts that come to us making us doing the task. However, we may start to wonder if our choices that we chose are actually free. As we read further into the Fifty Readings in Philosophy by Donald C. Abel, all the readers would argue about the thought of free will. The first reading “The System of Human Freedom” by Baron D’Holbach, Holbach argues that “human being are wholly physical entities and therefore wholly subject to the law of nature. We have a will, but our will is not free because it necessarily seeks our well-being and self-preservation.” For example, if was extremely thirsty and came upon a fountain of water but you knew that the water was poisonous. If I refrain from drinking the water, that is because of the strength of my desire to avoid drinking the poisonous water. If I was too drink the water, it was because I presented my desire of the water by having the water overpowering me for overseeing the poison within the water. Whether I drink or refrain from the water, my action are the reason of the out coming and effect of the motion I take next. Holbach concludes that every human action that is take like everything occurring in nature, “is necessary consequences of cause, visible or concealed, that are forced to act according to their proper nature.” (pg. 269)

    Read More

  • Foreknowledge and Free Will: Are they Incompatible?

    1470 Words  | 3 Pages

    We can now establish that foreknowledge and free-will are incompatible due to two factors: The first derives from the idea that having free will is a matter of having a choice about the certainty of our actions, and that having a choice depends on the presence of genuine options. This dilemma is present in Peter Kreeft’s analogy of the story, here the presence of an omniscient author (God) does not allow for true choice if our actions are actually determined by the outcome of the story and not by our own choice. The second factor derives from the idea that the truth and presence of predetermination means that we don’t cause our actions in a significant way and our actions are not ultimately controlled by us. In other words, we lack the ability for self-determination. This dilemma is present in Augustine’s later notion of massa damnata, here God because of our tendency to sin has already predetermined who will be sinners and who will be saved, a controversial notion that only further compounds the fact that foreknowledge and free-will are

    Read More

  • Free Will and Determinism

    1633 Words  | 4 Pages

    The problem of free will and determinism is a mystery about what human beings are able to do. The best way to describe it is to think of the alternatives taken into consideration when someone is deciding what to do, as being parts of various “alternative features” (Van-Inwagen). Robert Kane argues for a new version of libertarianism with an indeterminist element. He believes that deeper freedom is not an illusion. Derk Pereboom takes an agnostic approach about causal determinism and sees himself as a hard incompatibilist. I will argue against Kane and for Pereboom, because I believe that Kane struggles to present an argument that is compatible with the latest scientific views of the world.

    Read More

  • On Free Choice of the Will

    1445 Words  | 3 Pages

    “Please tell me: isn’t God the cause of evil?” (Augustine, 1). With this question to Augustine of Hippo, Evodius begins a philosophical inquiry into nature of evil. Augustine, recently baptized by Saint Ambrose in Milan, began writing his treatise On Free Choice of the Will in 387 C.E. This work laid down the foundation for the Christian doctrine regarding the will’s role in sinning and salvation. In it, Augustine and his interlocutor investigate God’s existence and his role in creating evil. They attempt not only to understand what evil is, and the possibility of doing evil, but also to ascertain why God would let humans cause evil. Central to the premise of this entire dialogue is the concept of God, as relates to Christianity; what is God, and what traits separate Him from humans? According to Christianity, God is the creator of all things, and God is good; he is omnipotent, transcendent, all-knowing, and atemporal- not subject to change over time- a concept important to the understanding of the differences between this world and the higher, spiritual realm He presides over. God’s being is eidos, the essence which forms the basis of humans. With God defined, the core problem being investigated by Augustine and Evodius becomes clear. Augustine states the key issue that must be reconciled in his inquiry; “we believe that everything that exists comes from the one God, and yet we believe that God is not the cause of sins. What is troubling is that if you admit that sins come from… God, pretty soon you’ll be tracing those sins back to God” (Augustine, 3).

    Read More

  • Analysis Of God's Omniscient And Free Will

    1575 Words  | 4 Pages

    Hypothetically speaking, if there was a machine in the world that could able project the image of a person choosing to do tomorrow. Wouldn’t that entail tomorrow this person must do what was known in advance? In the end, despite the planning and deliberating, this person must choose exactly as the machine projected. The question we have to ask ourselves is this: “Does free will exist, or it just merely an illusion?” But, no machine with such capability existed in this world, and the only one with such power is God. The argument of God’s omniscient and human free will has gone for thousands of years, the core of this argument is if God was claimed to be all-knowing, hence in possession of infallible foreknowledge of human actions, therefore, humans should not have free will. The concept of God is all-knowing and human have free will is inherently contradictory, therefore, they cannot coexist. This argument implicated predestination and often resonated with the dilemma of determinism, because God was supposed to have given mankind free will.

    Read More

  • Benchmark Assignment: Gospel Essentials

    1701 Words  | 4 Pages

    A wonderful description of the nature of God’s existence that includes the absolute possession of characteristics that have to be uniquely God was said, “First, God must exist necessarily, which means that God’s existence differs from ours by not being dependent on anything or anyone else, or such as to be taken from him or lost in any way. God has always existed, will always exist and could not do otherwise than to exist. Also, whatever attributes God possesses, he possesses necessarily” (Wood, J., 2010, p. 191).

    Read More

  • The Concept Of Free Will In The Movie Gattaca

    1385 Words  | 3 Pages

    Imagine starting your day and not having a clue of what to do, but you begin to list the different options and routes you can take to eventually get from point A to point B. In choosing from that list, there coins the term “free will”. Free will is our ability to make decisions not caused by external factors or any other impediments that can stop us to do so. Being part of the human species, we would like to believe that we have “freedom from causation” because it is part of our human nature to believe that we are independent entities and our thoughts are produced from inside of us, on our own. At the other end of the spectrum, there is determinism. Determinism explains that all of our actions are already determined by certain external causes

    Read More

  • Free Will and Moral Responsibility

    1192 Words  | 3 Pages

    Free will and moral responsibility has always been one of the most basic and fundamental elements of philosophy. It is undeniable that there is a connection between free will and moral responsibility. Different philosophers throughout the ages have viewed this connection in both similar and differing ways. The first connection between free will and moral responsibility can be seen by Aristotle and Epictetus through their views of the voluntary and involuntary. It can then be seen in a differing view by Frankfurt in which a person is only free if they are free to have the will they want.

    Read More

  • The Illusion of Free Will

    981 Words  | 2 Pages

    The scientific approach seeks the immediate cause of an event to what led to what. Scientist assume this as determinism, the idea that everything happens has a cause or determent that one could observe or measure. This view is an assumption, not an established fact but the success of scientific research attests to its value. Does it apply to human behavior? After all we are part of the physical world and our brains are made of chemicals. According to the determinist assumptions, everything we do has causes. This view seems to conflict with the impression all of us have that “I” am the one who makes the decisions about my actions like what to eat or what to buy; I am in doubt right up to the last second. The decision could have gone either way which I wasn’t controlled by anything and no one could have predicted what I would do. The belief that behaviors is caused by a person's independent decision is known as free will.

    Read More

More about The Paradox Of Free Will

Open Document