Argument From Free Will

Atheists have become increasingly interested in demonstrating that God is logically impossible but most of these arguments are flawed at best. Before we get started, it should be noted that this form of the “free will” problem is best known as theological fatalism. The difference here is that the atheist have questioned God's free will where as theological fatalism questions whether humans have free will. The argument is as follows:

1. God knows all, including every action he will ever take, and their consequences.
2. God is omnipotent (all powerful)
3. God cannot perform any action that contradicts what he has already seen.
4. Either (1) is false and he does not know every action he will ever take, or (2) is false and he is not all powerful. In order for (3) to be false, he would be performing an action that he had not seen, and therefore (1) would also have to be false.

As outlined, it attempts to prove that a omnipotent being cannot logically exist. This basically proposes that God is bound to the future he knows and cannot contradict that knowledge because such a being is non-existent. That is, if our logic could be used upon such a being. This, however, isn't the case for Christianity which states that we can have knowledge of God. We cannot have complete knowledge of God since we'd be omniscient ourselves but this doesn't imply that God cannot be understood. In theological terms, God is all wise and He created us in His likeness which means that some characteristics of Himself have been given to us. It is important to realize that our logic can be faulty and we must not obstinately hold on to something that's flawed.

Premise (1): Omniscience

I personally have no problem with the definition here. To be more precise, God's omniscience is the ability to know everything which includes -- past, present, and future. He knows what's actual but not the impossible. For example, God cannot know the possibility of His non-existence or recall any time of His non-existence for this is logically contradictory. I believe this definition is a sufficient establishment for our discussion to abide by.

This argument left out a vital component of God's essence, which is eternity. How would you define eternity? Understanding this will greatly collapse this paradox into dust. Simply put, eternity is perpetual duration that has no beginning or end and is completely contrary to time. There is no “before” or “after” in eternity but is rather a eternal duration of one moment. Perhaps more negative can be said of eternity than positive for we simply cannot fathom what it would be like without a past and future.

“Eternity and time differ as the sea and rivers; the sea never changes place, and is always one water; but the rivers glide along, and are swallowed up in the sea; so is time by eternity”. Stephen Charnock

God always was, always is and always will be what He is. He is without succession or change. A man is the same in existence when he was a child but there is a new succession of qualities in him as time progresses. Every day there is a change in our age and a change in our substance. God, however, receives nothing new to His essence and He can never loose anything from what He was before.

How does this refute this paradox? Well, all things are present to God in regard to his knowledge, and doesn't know one thing now and know another thing later. Eternality is part of God's nature and is inseparable. He considers all things in eternity as one simple knowledge as if they were now acted before him. This whole argument assumes that God fore-knew what would He would do “later”. Though, everything that God has done is done in one single moment. Therefore, knowledge is based on His eternal nature. Again, eternity doesn't experience change!

1. God is eternal.
2. God makes an infinite number of choices in one moment.
3. God considers all things in eternity as one simple knowledge.
4. Therefore, God doesn't foreknow but simply knows in one eternal now.

Premise (2): Omnipotence

As before, this definition allows the possibility of God doing something that's either logically contradictory to His nature or impossible. Though it may have not been the author's intention, this has been a common misconception. God can only do that which is not contradictory to his nature. No matter how much power, it does not give the ability to do something that is contradictory.

“We do not put the life of God and the foreknowledge of God under any necessity when we say that God must live an eternal life and must know all things. Neither do we lessen his power when we say He cannot die or be deceived. This is the kind of inability which, if removed, would make God less powerful than He is. God is rightly called omnipotent, even though He is unable to die and be deceived. We call Him omnipotent because He does whatever He wills to do and suffers nothing that He does not will to suffer. He would not, of course be omnipotent, if He had to suffer anything against His will. It is precisely because He is omnipotent that for Him some things are impossible”. Augustine

Premise (3)

Any action that God has already decided wouldn't be in need of change. Logically, a God who needs to change something implies a mistake which isn't possible. So why would He need to change it? This directly contradicts His nature as i mentioned above. Second, He is an all-wise God and would choose that which is best. It's safe to say that this paradox is not a challenge to Christianity.