God's foreknowledge and free will

[elopez]

Hi Resha. Hope all is well. Haven't had the opportunity to discuss this with you lately, and as it seems this is our heated topic, this may be a good place to pick up. I have some questions about this view, and am interested to see where it can go.

With respect to knowledge I would say God knows all that can be known.

I will start here. I don't really see the need to use "all" in reference to this view, since we could just say "God knows what can be known" and it means the exact same (and even seems more sensible with this view). It just seems like some sellout way to incorporate "all" as to not appear as controversial, and still include a sense of familiarity with the classical notion of omniscience.

If there is a future event that cannot logically be known, then I don't understand why we expect God to know it.

Because it almost seems like a case of special pleading; how can you claim God has foreknowledge of some things, yet not others?

For instance, you claim: "God foretold (through the prophets) the coming of the Christ." Though the fact of the matter is that while you want to differentiate "foretold" and "foreknown", there isn't a relevant difference there. In order for God to foretell He must also foreknow, as even indicated by your other claim: "He knew it..".

I get that you're saying God foreknows of only significant things, and since what you eat tomorrow isn't as significant as God telling the prophets of Christ, yet you can't neglect that God foreknew of various other things while there was no prophets, so that He could not have foretold anyone, such as the creation of the universe and earth.

God has not foretold what I will eat tomorrow. He may know.

And on this point. God doesn't need to foretell in order to foreknow. In the case of creation, this is absolutely true. God used His power to ensure the universe was created, there were no prophets around...yet would you object that God lacked foreknowledge of His own creation? Or that He would create?

 

[KCfromNC]

Not predetermination. Not predestination.
True Free Will and True Omniscience.

Yes, I know you disagree. The question is why.

for the sake of argument...consider

• Man considers Omniscience and Free Will to be logically incompatible.
• Man's logic is based on Man's abilities.
• An ant's abilities are far more closely related to a man's abilities than man's abilities are related to a god's abilities.
• An ant can look at the Golden Gate Bridge and be completely clueless as to its origin or purpose.
• If an ant cannot comprehend the Golden Gate Bridge, then how is man supposed to be able to comprehend the feasibility of a god's omniscience and man's free will coexisting?

for the sake of argument

So basically you're admitting that as a puny human you have no way to comprehend how omniscience and free will are compatible. I agree with that, we just disagree on the cause of the problem.

 

[KCfromNC]

"Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?"

Yes. Iron chariots, for one.

 

[ecco]

​

In what part of that post did I make it moral vs immoral.

"A person can set bad examples for his children and teach them to to care for no one and nothing (i.e. immorality) or he can set good examples and teach them right from wrong. (i.e. morals) These actions instill various levels of morality into the child."

That's a new low for you. You insert your own "examples/definitions/thoughts" and try to make it sound like it was something I said.

All the while ignoring the last sentence:

These actions instill various levels of morality into the child.
​

Some might consider what you did to be immoral:

im·mor·al
i(m)ˈmôrəl/
adjective

1. not conforming to accepted standards of morality.
   "an immoral and unwinnable war"
   synonyms: unethical, bad, morally wrong, wrongful, wicked, evil, foul, unprincipled,unscrupulous, dishonorable, dishonest, unconscionable, iniquitous,disreputable, corrupt, depraved, vile, villainous, nefarious, base,miscreant;

​

You really need to lose the black and white attitude toward life.

-Stealing a candy bar from a store is immoral
-Breaking into someone's house and stealing their belongings is immoral
-Torturing and then murdering someone is immoral​

Are they all one and the same? Do the people committing these immoral acts all have the same level of morals?


Instead of playing word games, why don't you try to respond to the gist of what I have been saying:

• Omnipotent God gave A&E the entirety of their moral compass.
• Omniscient God ForeKnew the result.
• Omniscient God blamed A&E for their disobedience even though He ForeKnew they would disobey Him.

 

[Albion]

That's a new low for you. You insert your own "examples/definitions/thoughts" and try to make it sound like it was something I said.

Oh, DO give it a rest. I quoted you with obvious edits set off from your own words by both a different font and a different color; and both your original post and the reference to it (which you asked me to provide) are right there for anyone to read.

 

[Belk]

As I said, it doesn't really matter. I'm not claiming omniscience for myself, so it's mostly speculation on my part. Those who dismissed your idea may simply have another view, but in many cases I would suspect they simply aren't familiar with the body of philosophical work in this area.

There are many subtle shades close to what you and I have described. One shade (which seems close to your view) is called Molinism. I think WLC advocates for something like Molinism. My shade is of the Lutheran variety, and was best articulated by Alan Padgett - so not something I really invented. I came up with the idea on my own, but after reading Padgett realized he had largely formalized it before me. Nothing new under the sun and all that.

Indeed. I was quite depressed to realize most of my clever ideas had already been come up with by someone else.

My suspicion is that those who reject these ideas fear it in some way detracts from God's majesty - something I don't concur with.

Anyway, since you're so close, maybe you should become a Lutheran. Hah!

LOL. Not a bad idea if only for that whole "believe in deity thing".

 

[ecco]

Do you consider god's omnipotence to be a nonsensical claim?

You make a poor argument for the sake of the argument?? Depends on the definition. If it includes "being able to do the illogical", then yes.

...then, yes. But many do not believe as you do.

Do some believe in an omniscient god? Yes.
Do some of those same people believe in Genesis? Yes.

I am merely trying to point out to those people, that their beliefs must require them to accept that:

A. God ForeKnew Adam & Eve would disobey Him.
B. God planned to cast sin upon all mankind.
C. God had no business blaming A&E for the consequences of His actions.​

 

[lesliedellow]

I am merely trying to point out to those people, that their beliefs must require them to accept that:

A. God ForeKnew Adam & Eve would disobey Him.
B. God planned to cast sin upon all mankind.
C. God had no business blaming A&E for the consequences of His actions.​

I don't believe Genesis 2-3 is history, but it is true as theology. Therefore:

a.) Correct
b.) Correct
c.) Wrong

People are still responsible for their choices, even though they are foreordained by God. Had it been history, nobody would have been holding a gun to Eve's head when she plucked fruit from the tree.

 

[ecco]

So basically you're admitting that as a puny human you have no way to comprehend how omniscience and free will are compatible. I agree with that, we just disagree on the cause of the problem.

There is a big difference between comprehending how omniscience and free will are compatible and accepting that omniscience and free will are compatible.

I, along with everyone else, accept that gravity works. I, along with everyone else, cannot comprehend how gravity works.

My example was directed to those who argue that the two are incompatible. At this point, I don't know if that includes you.

 

[ecco]

Oh, DO give it a rest. I quoted you with obvious edits set off from your own words by both a different font and a different color; and both your original post and the reference to it (which you asked me to provide) are right there for anyone to read.

Not in my original reference, nor anywhere throughout my posts, have I ever put it in terms of "moral vs immoral". I have always referred to levels of morality. You are the one who wants to look at this in terms of black and white, -right there for anyone to read-

Again...
Instead of playing word games, why don't you try to respond to the gist of what I have been saying:

• Omnipotent God gave A&E the entirety of their moral compass.
• Omniscient God ForeKnew the result.
• Omniscient God blamed A&E for their disobedience even though He ForeKnew they would disobey Him.

 

[ecco]

I am merely trying to point out to those people, that their beliefs must require them to accept that:
A. God ForeKnew Adam & Eve would disobey Him.
B. God planned to cast sin upon all mankind.
C. God had no business blaming A&E for the consequences of His actions.

I don't believe Genesis 2-3 is history, but it is true as theology. Therefore:

a.) Correct
b.) Correct
c.) Wrong

People are still responsible for their choices, even though they are foreordained by God. Had it been history, nobody would have been holding a gun to Eve's head when she plucked fruit from the tree.

First off, I have not, would not use the term "foreordained". I have consistently referred to god's ForeKnowledge.

If I push you off a cliff, you have no choice but to hit the ground below. If, after you hit the ground below, can I honestly state that it was your choice to hit the ground below?

 

[lesliedellow]

If I push you off a cliff, you have no choice but to hit the ground below. If, after you hit the ground below, can I honestly state that it was your choice to hit the ground below?

Since there were no mental processes involved on my part, prior to my plunging off the cliff, clearly it would not have been my choice.

 

[ecco]

If I push you off a cliff, you have no choice but to hit the ground below. If, after you hit the ground below, can I honestly state that it was your choice to hit the ground below?

Since there were no mental processes involved on my part, prior to my plunging off the cliff, clearly it would not have been my choice.

Right. So, can I honestly state that it was your choice to hit the ground below?[/QUOTE]

 

[lesliedellow]

Right. So, can I honestly state that it was your choice to hit the ground below?

[/QUOTE]

No you can't, but I don't see what that has to do with anything. The analogy I suspect you are trying to draw will not work, because you do not have Godlike powers.

 

[Resha Caner]

Hi Resha. Hope all is well. Haven't had the opportunity to discuss this with you lately, and as it seems this is our heated topic, this may be a good place to pick up.

Sure. I've become more of a casual, occasional participant here, but we can talk. Also, as a preamble I will note that I was intentionally brief and so tried to pack a lot into very few words. As such, I don't really have any quibbles with the semantic differences you've noted.

I don't really see the need to use "all" in reference to this view, since we could just say "God knows what can be known" and it means the exact same (and even seems more sensible with this view).

OK.

For instance, you claim: "God foretold (through the prophets) the coming of the Christ." Though the fact of the matter is that while you want to differentiate "foretold" and "foreknown", there isn't a relevant difference there. In order for God to foretell He must also foreknow, as even indicated by your other claim: "He knew it..".

I wasn't making the distinction you're drawing. I just used the word that best fit the context of the sentence. So, what you say is fine.

And on this point. God doesn't need to foretell in order to foreknow. In the case of creation, this is absolutely true. God used His power to ensure the universe was created, there were no prophets around...yet would you object that God lacked foreknowledge of His own creation? Or that He would create?

Again, OK. The mention of prophets was just a contextual reference. I wasn't implying that God needs prophets. He knows what he knows with or without them.

I get that you're saying God foreknows of only significant things, and since what you eat tomorrow isn't as significant as God telling the prophets of Christ, yet you can't neglect that God foreknew of various other things while there was no prophets, so that He could not have foretold anyone, such as the creation of the universe and earth.

This is a fair criticism of what I said. I didn't mean to imply that the only future knowledge God doesn't possess is trivial knowledge. It could be anything. Maybe he didn't know Obama would be the 44th President. So, two things: 1) I'm not speaking for what God knows and doesn't know. They were simply hypothetical examples. 2) I'm trying to indicate my view is significantly different than Open Theism, and is a subtly different shade than voluntary nescience.

But maybe I'm a bit rusty in choosing my phrasing.

Because it almost seems like a case of special pleading; how can you claim God has foreknowledge of some things, yet not others?

So, when it's all said and done, it seems this may be the only real difference between us to this point. Again, I'm not making specific claims regarding what God knows and doesn't know. To do so would rise to the level of some kind of fallacy - some kind of contradictory claim that I am below God yet above God.

In the end, we can only know of God what he has revealed to us. Anything else is speculation.

However, I don't understand attempts to ascribe to God the logically impossible - the ability to create square circles, to make 1 + 1 equal 3, ... and in this case the ability to know what can't be known.

 

[elopez]

So, two things: 1) I'm not speaking for what God knows and doesn't know. They were simply hypothetical examples.

Yet hypothetical examples are meant to further a real, valid point. And that point I assume is that you do indeed believe there are things that God does not know. In a general sense, is that accurate?

2) I'm trying to indicate my view is significantly different than Open Theism, and is a subtly different shade than voluntary nescience.

Well let's see what OT claims and see what you disagree or have difference with.

1. God does not know the future exhaustively.
2. God is omniscient, but deny that this means that God knows everything that will happen.
3. A rejection of divine timelessness.
4. The future free will choices of individuals cannot be known ahead of time by God.
5. Promotes incompatibilism.
6. A type of change for God of some sense as He becomes aware of the future as it unfolds.

And I'm sure that's not even all, but they paint a pretty accurate picture of traditional open theism. What exactly is different from your view on these points?

Voluntary nescience is but a form of OT. The other form simply claims the future is not knowable. According to the view that the future is knowable by God, it is also maintained that He voluntarily limits His knowledge of free will choices so that they can remain truly free.

So if you're view is some place in bet these two, what exactly is it? I'm just trying to clarify this.

So, when it's all said and done, it seems this may be the only real difference between us to this point. Again, I'm not making specific claims regarding what God knows and doesn't know. To do so would rise to the level of some kind of fallacy - some kind of contradictory claim that I am below God yet above God.

But you are claiming God doesn't know things in a general way, which is not much different than being so specific. This view allows for that fallacy, however, as you could make specific claims, and what's more is that it could be correct.

However, I don't understand attempts to ascribe to God the logically impossible - the ability to create square circles, to make 1 + 1 equal 3, ... and in this case the ability to know what can't be known.

Sure we can say a "square circle" is a logical impossibility, though, I do not know if we can put "to know the future as it cannot be known" on the same terms. I mean, you have already agreed that God does know the future, which itself implies the future can be known by God especially considering you said that He can foreknow if He used His power to ensure His will is done.

 

[Resha Caner]

Yet hypothetical examples are meant to further a real, valid point. And that point I assume is that you do indeed believe there are things that God does not know. In a general sense, is that accurate?

Not really.

1. God does not know the future exhaustively.
2. God is omniscient, but deny that this means that God knows everything that will happen.
3. A rejection of divine timelessness.
4. The future free will choices of individuals cannot be known ahead of time by God.
5. Promotes incompatibilism.
6. A type of change for God of some sense as He becomes aware of the future as it unfolds.

I doubt I would agree with any of those statements. For some I'm not sure I understand what you mean so I can't answer. For others, to answer simply "yes" or "no" would be to subscribe to what I consider to be a false dichotomy.

Sure we can say a "square circle" is a logical impossibility, though, I do not know if we can put "to know the future as it cannot be known" on the same terms. I mean, you have already agreed that God does know the future, which itself implies the future can be known by God especially considering you said that He can foreknow if He used His power to ensure His will is done.

I'd prefer this not splinter into a thousand different discussions, so I'd rather not chase each of those 6 statements separately. It seems to me this might center on a single issue.

It seems you would accept that some things are a logical impossibility. Is that correct? If so, why are there no logical impossibilities connected to time? That would be my question to you.

 

[ecco]

No you can't, but I don't see what that has to do with anything. The analogy I suspect you are trying to draw will not work, because you do not have Godlike powers.

Then let's go from analogy to history as gleaned from Genesis (which, I believe, you have stated you do not consider history - but anyway).

Given:
God is omnipotent - He could have created Adam & Eve in any way He wanted.
God is omniscient - as you stated "we do have to assume that he knew the outcome"
Godly Omniscience and Human Free Will are not mutually exclusive

Then:
Eternal God spent most of eternity before He created the universe
God created the Universe in exactly the manner He chose to (either 14 billion years ago or 6000 years ago with light, etc in transit as the YECs claim)
God created Adam & Eve in exactly the manner He chose to - with, among things, specific levels of morals.
God ForeKnew, given all the above, that Adam and Eve would disobey Him.

It isn't a question of whether "Adam and Eve were bound to fall". What matters is that God ForeKnew that they would. If He had instilled a higher level of morals, Adam and Eve would not have fallen. It is clear that it was God's plan that they would fall.

 

[KCfromNC]

There is a big difference between comprehending how omniscience and free will are compatible and accepting that omniscience and free will are compatible.

I guess if you want to take something on faith despite having no reason to believe it, no one can stop you.

 

[elopez]

Not really.

Then can you sum it up?

I doubt I would agree with any of those statements. For some I'm not sure I understand what you mean so I can't answer. For others, to answer simply "yes" or "no" would be to subscribe to what I consider to be a false dichotomy.

You could even refine the statements so they are concurrent with yours. I can see what you mean about a false dichotomy, which is why I view God as both atemporal and temporal.

I'd prefer this not splinter into a thousand different discussions, so I'd rather not chase each of those 6 statements separately. It seems to me this might center on a single issue.

And you don't have to. I was just curious how your view differs from OT. Those are the main themese of OT, so I thought you would have a take on them in regards to your view.

It seems you would accept that some things are a logical impossibility. Is that correct?

Yes, like I said, a square circle.

If so, why are there no logical impossibilities connected to time? That would be my question to you.

Well this kind of gets into one of the 6 points I mentioned, specifically 3. There are logical impossibilities connected to time. For instance, time travel. The question is a little vague for me to answer beyond that point.