What is your view or argument?
closed as too broad by Mauro ALLEGRANZA, Frank Hubeny, christo183, Eliran, Conifold Nov 7 '18 at 19:42
Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
Over the course of history, some would argue, religion has created a phenomenon that may be referred to as "a god of the gaps". When we cannot explain a phenomenon, we fill the gap with the will or magic of some all powerful entity who may take actions and have intentions beyond the limit of our understanding. Religion can be argued to be an epigenetic antidepressant in this respect, a strategy by which we cope with change we cannot fathom. The unfair and unexpected loss of a child becomes "a part of God's plan" for example. As we study natural phenomenon, less gaps need to be filled, and the god of the gaps has less gaps to fill. Theoretically this continues until God is dead, though I might personally disagree, not with the notion of a god of the gaps, but with the notion that all gaps will ever be filled as answers to questions, more often than not, breed new questions. In either case however, gaps are filled.
that being said, after a decade of reading and working in a number of positions that required a working understanding of human and in some cases, animal, decision making, it would seem that there may be a "Will of the Gaps" so to speak. This overlaps with the previous paragraph.
Jaynes in his book, [origins of human consciousness], speaks about how there are misunderstandings of how the ancient Greeks themselves interpreted the earthly impacts of their pantheon. In many cases, these interpretations fit the god of the gaps model, where fits of rage against the interest of the individual might be attributed to Ares or an angry god (Athena? In Sophocles' Ajax, or Hera in Heracles' slaughter of his wife and son), or the writing of poetry might be attributed to temporary possession by a muse. As we learn more about the functions of the brain, we fill in more and more gaps about human decision making that were previously attributed to free will.
I think that, with time, enough gaps may be filled that we will, as a species/culture, strongly consider the idea that free will is at the very least surprisingly limited if it exists at all, and we will progress towards a point that we can logically, to an extent, prove that free will may just be an epigentic illusion. A powerful tool to motivate us to make better decisions and to take responsibility for our actions.
Apologies for the small novel, I try to keep my answers concise, but this required a lot of prefacing and foundational information.
Hope this helps
If your idea pertains to the theological question then if your assumption is that god has a plan and has all of these powers over humans such as omnipotence etc and that he has a plan and know everything that was, is and will be and then you're told you have free will well. We can say if you have free will then you're actively changing the plan but was god not omnipotent and isn't the plan rock solid? So what I would say is yes we have the illusion of free will we have a choice of the way to do things but we only can choose one and can never go back and make that choice again, we can think but eventually we choose and no longer get the choice.