POST AND REPLY(PHIL)W5

  

ANSWER THIS QUESTION 250 WORDS MIN

With reference to Pike’s article, how could it be said that Divine Omniscience challenges the idea that humans have free will? 

REPLY TO THESE POST 100 WORDS MIN EACH

1.  A thought is a priori, which can be created, a posteriori. ST. Anselm writes about a painter- cataloged in the Proslogium- that first conceives the object (a priori), then brings it into being (a posteriori) after having a deep understanding of whatever the artist formulates from thought. If somebody observes nature then there can be clearly seen that there is an underlining understanding. 
The environments that we find ourselves in are composed of a story. An author writes a story. There are different components to a story. In the environment, all components lead to an intelligent design. The smaller components fit to make the larger components, which creates a purpose. It’s like humans when we engineer a contraption for a purpose. 
The idea of a wrist watch laying in the field to be stumbled upon is a really good example by William Paley. The reasons for the contraption is unknown, but it is unmistakable that the components of what comprise it are put together in such a way for specific functions and purposes. The human body is an elaborate piece of machinery that has many functions and purposes, yet we do not know why it was constructed or how it operates, because we were not the original manufacturers. Would you want somebody to know how your machine works if your method to making money from a business highly depends on it?
It is hard to scientifically prove the theory of Intelligent Design and the argument of Teleological Design, because all scientific evidence is based on a posteriori, or tangible proof, which can only be satiated by the senses. God or what we believe to be God from our images of it in a priori or reasonable state can not be identically replicated into a physical form. God can not be put to the test.
Charles Darwin created the theory of evolution, which puts the idea of supernatural intervention to rest, if empirical methods are to be undoubtedly correct, because natural selection is the genetic modification by non-supernatural entities. I can manipulate the variables superficially, but if viewed in the purest of states, the variables can not have any other function from what they were created to do. 

2.  The term Omniscience provides the ability for one to know “everything.” To know everything is not just about knowing what is going on in present time but have the knowledge of what has occurred in the present, and what will take place in the future (Nelson 1965). As stated in his (Nelson)’s publication, it is said that, “God is usually said to have had foreknowledge to everything that has ever happened” (Nelson 59). The question that lies within that statement, is not only what is considered “everything,” but also, who decides what “everything,” is. That is the million-dollar question.
Free will is a tricky lady, and it’s something that I have often wondered if we true have free will. To have free will is to act or to think with our own authority, it is our choice to do what we do, or to think how we chose to. It is said in this publication, and other theories that god knows all. Therefore, if god knows everything, he will know what is going to take place in the future, so a person cannot think for themselves. For example, if we are told that it is 100% going to rain today, we do not see a cloud in the sky, but we are led to believe that it is going to rain no matter what we see. Therefore, we are going to dress for that occasion.
I did find something interesting about Pike’s article. Page 68 discusses a support to this argument that we do not have free will by stating, “unless I am mistaken, you would not directly compel the man to sin, though you knew beforehand that he was going to sin” (Nelson 68). Now class, what do you think St. Augustine means by that in reference to free will?