It has enters the people many possible ideas regarding the one of the influence of God in our
destination and our freedom.
It has the ones that leave of the
principle of the predestination, principle this according to which the man already would be born with a
destination traced for God, invariant and inflexible in which an adaptation to the way of its destination would only fit. It has on the other hand the ones that leave of the principle of that the man has total freedom to act, partidno of the principle that ha a destination in them not to guide and nor a God to who we are submitted. In my opinion, if they do not have to mix the things, that is, the fact not to exist a fixed and invariant destination is not leagued to the idíea necessarily of that God does not exist, therefore is speaking of different things (the man and God). Had to this, it has the idea of that the man possesss freedom up to one definitive limit, that is, the objective conditions of the reality limit the choices of the man. For example, a man who has been born, grown and vividoem an aboriginal village without never having left it can opt to believing or not the religion of its village, but he cannot, for example, opt to being Muslim without never having known the faith Islamic. Pparently this is a very obvious notion, but many of us in them we enquecemos of this when arguing the limits and possibilities of the condition human being in the Land, that is, for the fact of terms freedom of choice of our actions, this freedom is not become into possibility to make any thing (as for example to autoproclamar God). In such a way, we can arrive at the conclusion that God acts in certain direction on the freedom human being, when creating the cast of possible choices for each individual at each moment of its life, fitting to this quias individual to decide which or way (s) must follow. Thus being, I defend the position of that does not have nor total freedom nor determinismos absolute as for the freedom of the man to decide the questions of its life.