How can omniscience & omnipotence be compatible with free will?

[Cieza]

Here's something about Christianity that doesn't add up right to me:

Christians have said that God knows everything and can do anything. That means he knows the future or events which have yet to occur. He would therefore know today that a human being (we'll call him Pete) is going to choose 'A' instead of 'B'. However, since Pete has an unimpeded free will decision up until the time he makes his decision of either A or B, Pete could potentially choose B after God knew he was going to choose A. Can someone reconcile this?

 

[The Nihilist]

God isn't temporal. You might say that He simultaneously experiences both the time before and after Pete makes his decision.

That said, if one conceived of God as temporal and omniscient, then we'd have a problem.

 

[Cieza]

God isn't temporal. You might say that He simultaneously experiences both the time before and after Pete makes his decision.

That said, if one conceived of God as temporal and omniscient, then we'd have a problem.

If it were asked on Pete's day 1 if God knows what Pete will choose on day 3 - A or B - I'd assume the answer would be yes. Thus whatever God knows at that point in time on Pete's timeline becomes objectively (but unknown to Pete) measurable and cannot change. So let's say God knows on Pete's day 1 that Pete will choose 'A' on Pete's day 3. Pete then chooses 'B' on day 3. It seems to me that God's foreknowledge is negated.

 

[Bushido216]

God is atemporal. The best example I can give of this is imagining that God can view reality the same way that we can view a movie. If I watch The Dark Knight and I watch the last 10 minutes first, I know that Batman gets shot. If I then start the movie again from the beginning, I have prescient knowledge that Batman will end the movie being shot. However, I have hardly caused that action nor am I in anyway restricting Harvey's free will to shoot or not shoot Batman.

 

[Cieza]

God is atemporal. The best example I can give of this is imagining that God can view reality the same way that we can view a movie. If I watch The Dark Knight and I watch the last 10 minutes first, I know that Batman gets shot. If I then start the movie again from the beginning, I have prescient knowledge that Batman will end the movie being shot. However, I have hardly caused that action nor am I in anyway restricting Harvey's free will to shoot or not shoot Batman.

That's a poor analogy, as in your example, Batman doesn't have free will to avoid being shot.

 

[Bushido216]

That has more to do with physics than free will. There is no amount of free will that will make me faster than a speeding bullet.

Regardless, I'd appreciate if you responded to the my point and didn't critique my analogy.

 

[quatona]

God is atemporal. The best example I can give of this is imagining that God can view reality the same way that we can view a movie. If I watch The Dark Knight and I watch the last 10 minutes first, I know that Batman gets shot. If I then start the movie again from the beginning, I have prescient knowledge that Batman will end the movie being shot. However, I have hardly caused that action nor am I in anyway restricting Harvey's free will to shoot or not shoot Batman.

Agreed, but the issue is not "has caused the action, has restricted freewill or comitted the action" - but simply: "there´s no freewill".
As is the case in your analogy.

 

[Davian]

God isn't temporal. You might say that He simultaneously experiences both the time before and after Pete makes his decision.

That said, if one conceived of God as temporal and omniscient, then we'd have a problem.

Are there bible stories where God makes a decision? Where he changes his mind? Can you walk me through that process?

 

[Cieza]

That has more to do with physics than free will. There is no amount of free will that will make me faster than a speeding bullet.

Regardless, I'd appreciate if you responded to the my point and didn't critique my analogy.

Since you are the author of the book, you know that Batman's shooter will shoot Batman. He wouldn't have unimpeded free will to avoid picking up the gun and shooting Batman. In the real life scenario involving Pete, he has the choice of A or B - regardless if at a prior point in time God knew he would choose 'A'. That's why it's a poor analogy.

 

[Cieza]

Agreed, but the issue is not "has caused the action, has restricted freewill or comitted the action" - but simply: "there´s no freewill".
As is the case in your analogy.

This isn't the first time I've heard the analogy of an author who wrote a book and knows what all his characters will do. It's a horrible analogy because the characters in the book aren't free will agents.

 

[Cieza]

Are there bible stories where God makes a decision? Where he changes his mind? Can you walk me through that process?

I'm only going by what is presented to me by Christians.
Christians have said God can do anything & knows everything. If so, and humans have unimpeded free will, then one of the following must be true:

1) Either we don't really have free will
2) God isn't both omniscient & omnipotent

If both were true, then it would be possible to negate God's foreknowledge as I have already described.

 

[quatona]

This isn't the first time I've heard the analogy of an author who wrote a book and knows what all his characters will do. It's a horrible analogy because the characters in the book aren't free will agents.

For me, that´s not a problem with the book/dvd analogy itself (I don´t think we are freewill agents - I can´t even make logical sense of this idea -, after all) but rather with the conclusion.

 

[Received]

I'm only going by what is presented to me by Christians.
Christians have said God can do anything & knows everything. If so, and humans have unimpeded free will, then one of the following must be true:

1) Either we don't really have free will
2) God isn't both omniscient & omnipotent

If both were true, then it would be possible to negate God's foreknowledge as I have already described.

Unless God's foreknowledge is determined by the actions of free agents. It's not very difficult at all to explain. The common belief is that God's foreknowledge of X mowing his lawn causes him to mow his lawn; it's rather the case that X mowing the lawn in this possible world at this time constitutes the very stuff of the foreknowledge that God has regarding these actions. Loius Pojman points out that the epistemic and ontological are two different spheres, the former determines the latter and not the other way around, regardless of whether we're talking about events that determine knowledge typically understood (I realize that Billy is a good Scrabble player after the fact of his Scrabble awesomeness) or a knowledge of an event chronologically precedes it.

 

[Davian]

Unless God's foreknowledge is determined by the actions of free agents. It's not very difficult at all to explain. The common belief is that God's foreknowledge of X mowing his lawn causes him to mow his lawn; it's rather the case that X mowing the lawn in this possible world at this time constitutes the very stuff of the foreknowledge that God has regarding these actions. Loius Pojman points out that the epistemic and ontological are two different spheres, the former determines the latter and not the other way around, regardless of whether we're talking about events that determine knowledge typically understood (I realize that Billy is a good Scrabble player after the fact of his Scrabble awesomeness) or a knowledge of an event chronologically precedes it.

It may not very difficult at all to explain, but making sense of it is.

How does an atemporal being have foreknowledge of anything? And how does it make decisions? How does it change its mind, if it is not approaching the issues chronologically? Why would it need to?

 

[Received]

The "how" regarding foreknowledge is a different topic, of course. That is a difficult concept to think about, sure. I'm not going to be surprised if questions about God's nature are incredibly (perhaps impossibly) difficult; that would be more fitting of a so-called omnipotent creator than simplistic answers. However, the problem of the "how" of foreknowledge and the other questions you've stated doesn't mean that the answer of foreknowledge being determined by the actions of agents in possible worlds isn't solved.

 

[Cieza]

Unless God's foreknowledge is determined by the actions of free agents. It's not very difficult at all to explain.

If true, then God's knowledge is dependent on our decisions or choices and therefore would be unknown to him prior to our making of such choice. For example, Pete chooses A instead of B on day 3. If God's knowledge is determined by the action of Pete, then God wouldn't have this knowledge on Pete's day 1.

The common belief is that God's foreknowledge of X mowing his lawn causes him to mow his lawn;

If the free will agent can make an unimpeded free will choice to not mow his lawn, then God's foreknowledge could be compromised.

 

[Received]

If true, then God's knowledge is dependent on our decisions or choices and therefore would be unknown to him prior to our making of such choice.

It would be unknown to him prior to if you assume knowledge rather than foreknowledge. Knowledge implies chronological constraints; foreknowledge (who knows how, as Davian pointed out) doesn't. But yes, God's foreknowledge would be dependent on (determined by) our actions.

If the free will agent can make an unimpeded free will choice to not mow his lawn, then God's foreknowledge could be compromised.

I don't see compromise and being determined as the same thing. My knowledge of what you do is determined (after the fact) whether or not you mow the lawn at X time and Y location; likewise with foreknowledge without the chronological element. I wonder if any type of knowledge could be compromised.

 

[variant]

God is atemporal. The best example I can give of this is imagining that God can view reality the same way that we can view a movie. If I watch The Dark Knight and I watch the last 10 minutes first, I know that Batman gets shot. If I then start the movie again from the beginning, I have prescient knowledge that Batman will end the movie being shot. However, I have hardly caused that action nor am I in anyway restricting Harvey's free will to shoot or not shoot Batman.

Your analogy is actually more awfull than you think since God would have had to have caused the movie.

Did he write and direct it aswell? Was there a script? Can he edit it?

In fact your analogy dosen't exactly explain anything (except how you think God relates to time).

 

[Cieza]

It would be unknown to him prior to if you assume knowledge rather than foreknowledge. Knowledge implies chronological constraints; foreknowledge (who knows how, as Davian pointed out) doesn't. But yes, God's foreknowledge would be dependent on (determined by) our actions.

If foreknowledge is dependent on or determined by our actions, then it cannot exist infallibly prior to our actions being taken.

I don't see compromise and being determined as the same thing. My knowledge of what you do is determined (after the fact) whether or not you mow the lawn at X time and Y location; likewise with foreknowledge without the chronological element. I wonder if any type of knowledge could be compromised.

Well, let's say it's Monday and God has infallible knowledge that Pete will choose 'A' on Wednesday. Since Pete hasn't yet made his Wednesday decision of A or B, he could still potentially choose 'B'. If he chooses 'B', then either God's infallible foreknowledge becomes fallible or his foreknowledge retroactively changes - in which case, his foreknowledge of Monday would change come Wednesday from 'A' to 'B'. If that occurred, then if asked what God knew on Monday, would it have been 'A' or 'B'?

 

[Received]

If foreknowledge is dependent on or determined by our actions, then it cannot exist infallibly prior to our actions being taken.

That's what foreknowledge means. It sounds to me like you're essentially saying that foreknowledge can't exist because knowledge can't exist prior to an act. If you're against foreknowledge as a philosophical possibility, that's fine, but this is another subject.

Well, let's say it's Monday and God has infallible knowledge that Pete will choose 'A' on Wednesday. Since Pete hasn't yet made his Wednesday decision of A or B, he could still potentially choose 'B'.

Disagreed. The act of choosing 'A' is already foreknown, which means that God's knowledge of his act as freely chosen is already made. Foreknowledge doesn't mean you're free to choose what you haven't been foreknown to choose, just as knowledge doesn't mean you're free to choose what you've already chosen. If Pete has already chosen 'A' on Wednesday and it's now Friday, it's unintelligible to say that he could still choose 'B'. He could have chosen 'B', but this would have meant that my knowledge of him choosing 'B' would have been such, and God's foreknowledge before the act of him choosing 'B' would have been such.