The relationship between human freedom and God’s activities appear to be two exclusive alternatives. If God has foreknowledge of our destinies and if God is the cause of everything, then humans do not have free-will; on the other hand, if our choices are actually free then we must deny that God is omniscient or omnipotent because he does not know about our future actions or cause them. By doing so, we undermine God’s power and holiness.
Freedom of choice also forces us to take responsibility for our actions, for if we have free-will, we are the only ones to blame if we go to hell, but if God really is omnipotent, He is the one at fault. Free-will is not only opposed by God, but also by chance. If God or chance are chess players, and we are their game pieces, we cannot be blamed or praised for our actions. Are our choices then pre-ordained or do we have autonomy? Martin Luther argues that we have no free-will, while St. Augustine and Machiavelli assert we have some free-will and that other events pertain to either God or chance; however, I argue that…show more content… Augustine chooses to ignore that anything occurs because of chance. He believes that things out of our hand, like death, occurs because of God, yet Machiavelli assumes that situations one cannot control are due to chance, an impersonal natural force. In The Prince, chapter 25, he states, “[…] fortune determines one half of our action, but that, even so, she leaves us to control the other half” (74). He focuses especially on circumstances that directly affect a prince’s failure or success. A prince should not try to overcome chance; instead, he should approach her wisely and “master her, beat and strike her” (76). How does one beat or master something one cannot predict or see until one is hit with bad fortune? This is where, for Machiavelli, human will takes
