Argumentof the Free Will against Nonexistence of God
ChristianGod is regarded as a being that is aware of everything taking place.Individual beings have free will according to Christians (Barker &Richard 39). For one to have free will there must be an extra option,whereby each is avoidable. It means that before one makes a decision,there as to be a state of uncertainty at the same time a period ofpotential one cannot predict the future. As much as one think he orshe can, even when there is claims of existence of free will, onemust admit the potential before a final decision is made. However, apersonal being that is aware of everything can have a “state ofuncertainty”. It does not know its choices prior to. It means thatthere is potential to avoid the choices made, therefore has a freewill. The is because a being that has free will is a personal being,and a personal being that knows everything therefore exist. In thiscase therefore, the Christian God exists.
Onemay think he or she has the power to predict what his or herdecisions entail when there are claims of freewill existence,however, one has to admit that there is the potential to make upone’s mind on something else when making the final decision.According to Dan Barker, a being with awareness of everything shouldnot have a “state of certainty” since it must have the ability toknow his decisions and choices in advance. From his stand point,there is no potentiality to avoid the choices made and thus free willmay not be available. He disputed the argument that God exists. Heconcluded his argument by saying that there is no objection to tryand save the Christian God, (Barker & Richard 42). He gave analternative that claims that there is a possible imagination of amodest deity, the one that neither exists as an all-knowing norall-powerful since it could both be free and personal (Barker &Richard 49). As much as there are numerous arguments for or againstGod’s existence, transcendent, powerful divine reality, or betterstill against naturalism, the paper acknowledges that a lot of thesearguments are viewed to be interconnected or cumulative in one way orthe other. The thesis statement will argue against the nonexistenceof God, thus supports theism. In addition, it seek to attempt to laydown the existence of freewill in a more reasonable manner whentheism overlooks naturalism as Dan Backer, the author of “FreewillArgument for Nonexistence of God” claims since the freewill totheism objects naturalism (Lovering 79).
Asa mental act, the action we perform or do often turns out to besomething else as opposed to something that simply occurs to us. Whenwe choose to make decisions on choices, we automatically becomeagents, and when things are performed for us, we simply undergosituations and thus we become the patients (Barker & Richard 52).Since a choice is considered to be a mental action, it is easily andcausally determined. Indeed, such event when it happen is nottriggered at all and therefore, there is no casual explanationrequired to explain non-existence of the subject.
Lovering(92) argues that theists are easily and most invariably come acrossthis question with the defense of free will. The free will istriggered by free choices of moral beings that are argued about. Thefree will, though, is a good thing. The world that contains a freebeings that serves to be much better than that which containsautomata or the one that has no conscious beings. An omnipotent,omnipresent, and benevolent God, therefore, could create a world thathas free beings, and by doing so, it stands the risk of allowing themoral evil in access the world. Free will occurs with the purpose ofdistancing the world from God. This is because God does not triggerthe existence of free will by itself but by facilitating theexistence of free individuals first. Therefore, God exists but not asthe origin of evil and thus not responsible for occurrence of theevil.
Fromthis scenario, one might argue that even if the free beings areresponsible for penetration of moral evils, which they may not bedirectly responsible, God seem to bear a little responsibility forall the beings. God, after all, created these beings by being awareof the risks involved, and again He is also partly to blame for theabuses of their freedom. Barker and Richard (56) argued that God isguilty for creating the free beings even when in real sense He nevermeant to perpetrate any criminal vices by basing it against DanBarker’s standpoint since he argued that free will demands thepresence of more options freedom to choose, and the desire tochoose, power to get done with the choice, and potentiality to avoidthe option.
Thereis a moderate universal consensus that argues that human beingsbelieves that whatever they aspire could undetermined the choicesmeant for the basis of accepting that they simply became aware orhave the experience of coming up with such choices. A few free willbeings argue that it originates from religion. From this, people havethe belief that since they base it on their trust in God. It could befoolish to also deny that some people could claim that they startedhaving the free will this way it is also equally misadvised to claimthat they acquired freewill in this particular way (Lovering 97).While there are atheists that believe that they have free will, it isalso true to say those atheists belief more than the naturalists’that they possess more free will. This happens when one believes thatan individual can make undetermined purposeful choices, and thus theindividual is less inclined to be a little skeptical of a view likethat of theism that argues that a good, nonhuman, intentional Godchose to create a cosmos for a reason (Lovering 101).
Barkerand Richard (88) argued that it is important to note that individualstypically see the disagreement and differences that exists betweennaturalists and the theists on what could be an acceptableexplanation that is revealed in public debates on God’s existenceversus human beings free will. In the public debates, it should beargued that whether the existence of God should be acceptable or not.
Thesecond way that the defense of free will works to justify theexistence of theists is by justifying the existence God’s creationof beings. The presence of theistic argues the consequences ofexistence of a free will and God. Lovering (72) pointed out thatwithout free will there will be no presence of moral good since aworld free of human beings could be void of morals. The good thathuman beings exhibits is recommended, and thus outweighs the badexistence, and that God did well in developing His existence while Healso knew that some of His beings could commit moral evils.
Argumentagainst the existence of God demands that free will requires thepresence of only one option, a genuine desire to choose from, thefreedom to choose, the power to achieve the choice, and thepotentiality to avoid the option. He went ahead to say that “strengthand aptitude” places a limit on an individual’s freedom toperform. He argues that no individual has the free will to accomplisha one-minute mile without any mechanical assistance. He noted that wecould be free to try but we could still fail. The nature limits allour desires and our choices and yet individuals can still claim freewill since it is still hard to predict future choices.
Invalidating the argument against Dan Barker’s standpoint, thequestion that arises from the existence of God is: have we draggedthe idea on what would be classified as the “nonexistence of God”debate? It remains a popular basement in line of reasoning, whichinsists that human beings are required to be aware of God’sexistence to emphasis on the argument from the belief of theexistence of freewill for example, the argument that some of thesegaps found between God Himself and human beings explanations on theexistence of free will. The paper does not argue on that form thatthere is the presence of a gap in a seamlessly otherwise naturalistview of the reality, rather, it points to the nature and existence ofthe free will, purposeful explanations, and conscious mind thatserves as evidence for the existence of God. It remains an argumentthat fundamental character of any reality, and the kind of thingsthat exists for example feelings, and purposes accounts for provingthe argument of God’s existence. The paper also argues by differingfrom the typical freewill strategy insofar as the reasoning presentedto be comprehensive and categorical (Barker & Richard 56).
Inconclusion, the paper presents theism and arguments that hold water.By this, it treats individuals or free will apart from God. This isbecause it is part of the human beings nature to exercise free will,which we consciously know what moral life entails. The paper alsodifferentiates individuals’ concept of “nature” from thenaturalists’ concepts. It also claim a standpoint on any suggestionthat theism puts one over the character and scope of “nature” andstraight away rules out any suggestion that the existence of Godcould land one into some kind of non-natural enterprise just like DanBarker, the author of “the free will argument for nonexistence ofGod”
Barker,Dan, and Richard Dawkins. Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher BecameOne of America`s Leading Atheists. Berkeley, Calif: Ulysses Press,2008. Print.
Lovering,Rob. God and Evidence: Problems for Theistic Philosophers. London:Bloomsbury Publishing, 2013. Internet resource