Does the omniscience of God really rule out free will?

Question

THE government of every prudent governor is ordained to the perfection of the things governed, to the gaining, or increasing, of maintenance of that perfection. An element of perfection then is more worthy of being preserved by providence than an element of imperfection and defect. But in inanimate things the contingency of causes comes of imperfection and defect: for by their nature they are determined to one effect, which they always gain, unless there be some let or hindrance arising either from limitation of power, or the interference of some external agent, or indisposition of subject-matter; and on this account natural causes in their action are not indifferent to either side of an alternative, but for the most part produce their effects uniformly, while they fail in a minority of instances. But that the will is a contingent cause comes of its very perfection, because its power is not tied to one effect, but it rests with it to produce this effect or that, wherefore it is contingent either way. * Therefore providence is more concerned to preserve the liberty of the will than to preserve contingency in natural causes.
2. It belongs to divine providence to use things according to their several modes. But a thing's mode of action depends upon its form, which is the principle of action. But the form whereby a voluntary agent acts is not determinate: for the will acts through a form apprehended by the intellect; and the intellect has not one determined form of effect under its consideration, but essentially embraces a multitude of forms;* and therefore the will can produce multiform effects.

3. The last end of every creature is to attain to a likeness to God (Chap. XVII): therefore it would be contrary to providence to withdraw from a creature that whereby it attains the divine likeness. But a voluntary agent attains the divine likeness by acting freely, as it has been shown that there is free will in God (B. I, Chap. LXXXVIII).

4. Providence tends to multiply good things in the subjects of its government. But if free will were taken away, many good things would be withdrawn. The praise of human virtue would be taken away, which is nullified where good is not done freely: the justice of rewards and punishments would be taken away, if man did not do good and evil freely: wariness and circumspection in counsel would be taken away, as there would be no need of taking counsel about things done under necessity. It would be therefore contrary to the plan of providence to withdraw the liberty of the will.*

Hence it is said: God made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel: before man is life and death, whatever he shall please shall be given him (Ecclus xv, 14-17).

Hereby is excluded the error of the Stoics, who said that all things arose of necessity, according to an indefeasible order, which the Greeks called ymarmene (heimarmenê).

http://www2.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/gc3_73.htm

gwalman check this out:http://www2.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/gc3_10.htm

and this:http://www2.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/gc3_7.htm

Answer 1

No way, dude. Think about it some more.

Answer 2

Hey I spent a whole semester in philosophy debating this issue!! My answer is no. If God's omniscience ruled out free will, then that means that we have made no free choices, including the evil ones we have made. That means that God is responsible for the evil that we have committed, and therefore God is evil. And that goes against his never changing nature.

Answer 3

Hey, you figured out what Yahoo! Answers is really for!

You copy other web sites here, so that internet engines are hopelessly bogged down and the internet becomes useless.

Yep, religion always has been about limiting the people's access to knowledge.

Answer 4

wow thats a long passage of information....ok.
Let me attempt to try to explain why god has nothing to do with the reason that there's no free will:
Choose a color, red or blue?
Me: "Why did you choose that color? "
You: "Because I choose to while exercising my free will"
Me: "I mean why did you choose to choose that color?"
You: "um...i dunno...I like blue" (I'm assuming you choose blue)
Me: "and why do you like blue?"
The reason you might like blue might be any of a million, its your mom's favorite color, your favorite ipod is blue, ect...but whatever the reason, it influenced you to make that choice. You didnt just pull the choice out of a hat, some factors influenced you to make that choice.
Make sense? It's not easily explained in so short a time

Answer 5

No, it does not.