The argument from free will (also called the paradox of free will, or theological fatalism) contends that omniscience and free will are incompatible, and that any conception of God that incorporates both properties is therefore inherently contradictory. The argument may focus on the incoherence of people having free will, or else God himself having free will. These arguments are deeply concerned with the implications of predestination, and often seem to echo the standard argument against free will.
Other articles related to "argument from free will, argument":
... It has also been suggested that this can lead to a "Freewill Argument for the Nonexistence of God" on the grounds that God's omniscience is incompatible with God having freewill and that if God does not have freewill ... If omniscient is used in the first sense then the argument's applicability depends on what God chooses to know, and therefore it is not a complete argument against the existence of God ... In both cases the argument depends on the assumption that it is logically possible for God to know every choice that he will make in advance of making that choice ...
Famous quotes containing the words free will, free and/or argument:
“The angels yawning in an empty heaven;
Alternate shows of dynamite and rain;
And choosing forced on free will: fire or ice.”
—Philip Larkin (19221986)
“None who have always been free can understand the terrible fascinating power of the hope of freedom to those who are not free.”
—Pearl S. Buck (18921973)
“Because a person is born the subject of a given state, you deny the sovereignty of the people? How about the child of Cuban slaves who is born a slave, is that an argument for slavery? The one is a fact as well as the other. Why then, if you use legal arguments in the one case, you dont in the other?”
—Franz Grillparzer (17911872)