I'm sure you've seen (or perhaps even used) this argument:
1. A being with free will, given two options A and B, can freely choose between A and B.
2. God is omniscient (all-knowing).
3. God knows I will choose A.
4. God cannot be wrong, since an omniscient being cannot have false knowledge.
5. From 3 and 4, I will choose A and cannot choose B.
6. From 1 and 5, omniscience and free will cannot co-exist.
Now, Lenny Esposito (the author of the link I gave) gives a reasonable and satisfactory answer, but I'd like to point out a fundamental error that Lenny didn't.
It is true that humans are, biblically, possessors of the ability to make uncoerced choices ("free will"). It is true that the Bible argues for the genuine Omniscience of God. Not partial. Not limited. Complete. And it's true that, given Omniscience of that order, God will know all your choices (Point 3) and without error (Point 4). So far, so good. The error I found occurs at Point 5: "I will choose A and cannot choose B."
The error I find in this line is the term "cannot". "Cannot" expresses incapacity, inability, a lack of power. In this application, either the person in question lacks the ability or is prevented from choosing option B. And this simply isn't the case. Perfect knowledge of a choice has no effect on the ability of a person to make a different choice. As Esposito points out, the suggestion is a causal one. "Those who argue in this manner make the mistake of thinking that because God possesses knowledge about a specific matter, then he has influenced it." And that's why "cannot" is incorrect. "Will not" works. It would be accurate to say, "I will choose A and will not choose B." But the ability of the chooser is not affected by God's prior knowledge of the choice.
It's amazing to me that arrogant theologies have been produced and genuine heresies have followed from them to try to avoid a conclusion -- "omniscience and free will cannot co-exist" -- that is not accurate or logical.
No comments:
Post a Comment