lesliedellow
Member
- Sep 20, 2010
- 9,652
- 2,582
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
Upvote
0
God's foreknowledge and free will
- Thread starter brocke
- Start date
I tried, but apparently we didn't connect, so we'll have to try a different tack. I'll try using an example that I hope you find absurd because that may be what we need here. Suppose I were to ask, "Does God know the temperature between love and the color blue?" Hopefully you would reply that the statement has no meaning.
Since it is meaningless, there is nothing to know about the statement. I could, in one sense, answer, "No, God doesn't know that." But the reason God doesn't know it is because it is an absurdity. For someone to then say, "Aha! You're claiming there is knowledge God does not possess, so you are claiming God is not omniscient!" is to abuse the intent of my phrasing. The only reason I would say God doesn't know the answer to the question is because there is nothing to know about a meaningless statement.
I'm not poking at you, but what happens is that some people then extrapolate backward and try to inject meaning into the meaningless. Someone might say, "Well, I've always thought of love as hot and blue as a cold color, so we can measure a temperature between the two." Ugh.
In that regard, my opinion of many on this topic is that they are just playing semantic games with words like "determined". I will readily concede that if something is determined, that means God knows it. People then think they've caught me because God determines our free will future choices ... but the problem is that they are using two different definitions of "determined" that are shaded in subtly different ways. Were they to remain intellectually honest to one definition or another that they claim for "determined" then they would have to concede they are trying to push two incompatible ideas.
So, one of you six statements I might agree to is some form of incompatibilism. However, since that word has been placed in the philosophical pantheon, I'm not ready to agree to all the additional baggage that comes with it.
OK. So let me ask the next critical question. Is time travel a logical impossibility because of some truth that exists above God, or is time travel a logical impossibility because the universe God designed for us doesn't allow it?
What I'm doing here is leading you down a path. Are you going to agree to all the things that led to my conclusions, or will you object at some point? Either way we'll know whether we can agree, and if not why it is that we disagree.
Upvote
0
ecco said: ↑
There is a big difference between comprehending how omniscience and free will are compatible and accepting that omniscience and free will are compatible.Just to be clear, I do not believe in any gods. Hence, I do not believe in the omniscience of any gods.
However, for the sake of argument, if there was an omnipotent, omniscient god I would argue that his omniscience is compatible with man's Free Will for the reasons I have previously stated.
Upvote
0
I thought you were arguing that in that scenario, it would be a complete mystery. That's hardly a positive reason to believe that the two are compatible, or really to believe anything at all.
Upvote
0
ecco said: ↑
However, for the sake of argument, if there was an omnipotent, omniscient god I would argue that his omniscience is compatible with man's Free Will for the reasons I have previously stated.Again...
There is a big difference between comprehending how omniscience and free will are compatible and accepting that omniscience and free will are compatible.
The WHAT, not the HOW.
Of course, we all could have been created last Thursday, in which case I would not have had much time to test my Free Will. I also would not have made my posts of last Wednesday although I am currently sure I did.
Upvote
0
I have no idea what point it is you're trying to make. You're all over the place here. As near as I can tell, you're just saying that one could just pretend whatever they want regardless of evidence or reason. While that's true from a human nature point of view I'm not really sure what it has to do with a philosophical discussion about the merits of an idea.
Or are you going with something closer to : if god(s) exist, all the rules are out the window since it is a mysterious capricious magical being?
Upvote
0
You have every right to disagree with a philosophical argument I was trying to make to believers in Genesis. To try to understand my argument, put yourself into the mindset of a believer in Genesis.
That is self evident, but, no, that is not what I am going with.
Upvote
0
I still don't see a philosophical argument, just an assertion that maybe something is compatible with a mysterious thing we can't understand.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Well, it may not mean much, but I appreciate someone who can see the issue from the other side - even argue it - despite having disagreements with that position. It shows a depth of understanding that many lack, and it's not something I, myself, can do very well.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Thanks.
I've gone back over the last few pages and read the discussion between you and elopez. I won't say I agree with everything you are saying but you are saying it very well.
Upvote
0
elopez
Well-Known Member
And that's fine, but really all I got earlier is "I'm not speaking for what God knows and doesn't know".
Exactly, the question has no meaning, just as if you were to ask what does a square circle look like.
Yes...
Sure, but that isn't my argument. My argument is: You're claiming there is knowledge God has of the future that he has relayed to prophets, yet saying the future is not knowable. That is rather contradictory. How can you now say the future is not knowable, but earlier claimed that God has foretold, which you also agreed implies Him foreknowing, which means the future is knowable?
So what then of the prophecies God foretold and foreknew of that we spoke of earlier? Is that meaningless? That said, your description isn't what I would say.
Well the problem is determinism can mean different things. Logical determinism isn't the same as causal, and isn't necessarily implied from it, either. When we're talking about foreknowledge we should be speaking of determinism in the context of the logical. That is, that all propositions, whether about the past, present, or future, are either true or false. In a theological setting regarding foreknowledge, that if propositions of the future are known by God, and what that exacrly means. So, according to determinism in this sense, it is the idea that God has knowledge of all future propositions.
Determinism in the causal sense means that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature, and perhaps even the acts of God. Determinism in this case is more related to God’s agencyn and what that means.
So to say God determines our future free will choices is usually meant logically, as in if He foreknows our future choices, they are known to God without them having happened. God can also act and cause things to occur, which He may also had foreknowledge of.
Both these instances of determinism are combined to form a comprehensive idea of determinism. I don't really see how they're incompatible, and would be interested in an explanation.
What would you say that additional baggage is? Incompatibilism is really as broad as meaning free will and determinism are mutually exclusive. That's all it takes to agree to incompatibilism.
I would say time travel is impossible due to the nature of time.
As usual.
Upvote
0
You've been more patient that most. I added the qualifying statement because some want all the information up front before the discussion begins and some are OK with letting it unfold through the course of the discussion. I prefer the latter because I find it difficult to anticipate everything that might be necessary.
However, there have been cases where I tried giving everything up front and then I'm accused of posting an incomprehensible wall of text. Or I tried the latter and then I'm accused of information hiding. I just want to be as clear as possible about the nature of the discussion.
If that's all it is to you, that's fine. If you go somewhere like the Stanford encyclopedia you get a much lengthier tome: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/incompatibilism-arguments/
For example, what type of "free will" do you mean? Libertarian free will?
I wasn't explicitly asking you to define "determine", but it will probably help us that you did. I'm OK with adjective modifiers (logical determinism, causal determinism, etc.). My complaint was against those who use multiple definitions without modifiers as if they are the same thing.
I need some clarification on this. I would agree to the phrase "God knows all our future options" (plural). But, if you mean God knows what our future choice (singular) will be from among those options, I would disagree with that as a universal statement. To me that is where the logical impossibility enters in, thereby making it meaningless to claim God is not omniscient if he doesn't know those impossibilities.
I underlined "all" because you suggested removing it from one of my prior statements and I agreed. However, I now wonder if such indicates a difference in our views. You seem to be thinking of "future" as a single thing - determining the future means determining all events for all future time. I don't. The future is a collection of possible things, and so it is possible to know and determine some future events while not determining or not knowing other future events.
That might explain your confusion with the above, because I wasn't saying this. Whatever God knows of the future he knows. It will happen. So, whatever he told the prophets of the future was something causally determined to happen.
I am distinguishing that from what is not necessary for God to fulfill his will. If it is not necessary, he need not know it. If he need not know it, he may decide to not causally determine a future event. If he doesn't causally determine a future event, our will is unbound to make a choice.
Hmm. If that is just a way of saying, "I don't know," that's fine. If it's anything else I'd like to know why you found it necessary to create a 3rd option beyond the two I offered in order to answer my question.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
elopez
Well-Known Member
That's because I actually care to discuss the matter. I don't really have a preference, as long as there is clarity. A wall of text doesn't phase me. I'd almost rather that than letting things unfold as it seems that leaves more room for misunderstanding.
Well yeah, incompatibilism is simply the view determinism and free will are mutually exclusive. Of course there is more to it than that, but on the surface, that's really all it seems to be. I am sure there is your own additional baggage that comes with your idea of incompatibilism, too.
Compatibilist free will. The idea that, as long as there are no forces or factors that prevent us from acting how want, or coerces us into action, we are free. I also take note a type of 'mental freedom' in that we need to understand our reasons for acting to be free as well.
And I understand that, but as you said, I figured that explanation would help our discussion.
I too agree with this statement, although this was not what I was suggesting.
That is what I meant, and of course that is where we disagree. I don't find a reasonable explanation for why it is impossible for God to foreknow what our future choice will be (singular), if He does indeed foreknow of all of our future options. And even more so when He does in fact foreknow of certain future choices.
If you want to say "fixed" as "single" then sure. There is but one future that will unfold as it is.
And this is just another point of disagreement. This is also where I believe the fallacy may come into play, and where the confusion lies. You're claiming an exception (God does not know and does not determine some things) be applied to a specific case (God has foreknowledge), without proper justification of why that case deserves an exemption.
Why is it that God only knows and determines some things, and not others?
Not really. I thought you were trying to say the future is not knowable, as it is logically impossible to know something that which cannot be. I thought that from your remarks: The only reason I would say God doesn't know the answer to the question is because there is nothing to know about a meaningless statement.
Though, does what will happen in future happen because God foreknows of it? Consider again the definition of causal determinism, and how it is connected to agency. What He foretold the prophets did not happen yet. It was not through agency that God determined Christ' coming when He foretold the prophets. Was it? Key word foretold. The statement, "Christ will come" was true plenty before it happened, making the determined factor that of the logical.
But how do you know what is necessary and what is not?
Though, this does not imply God cannot know it. Just because something is unecessary doesn't make it unkowable. And if not unknowable, what is there to say that He doesn't know the unecessary?
If something is not causally determined, does that mean it cannot be logically determined? If you say it does, then how do you explain the matter of future contingents concerning the prophets; God did not act yet as to bring Christ, yet as the event had not taken place yet or was not widely known did not make it false at the time or any other time. In fact, the statement, "Christ is coming" was true back then before it took place. It was true as God foreknew of it, and as it was no lie as He foretold the prohpets. If you say that doesn't mean such, we agree foreknowledge in and of itself is deterministic in the logical sense.
If we can come to terms with the idea that foreknowledge is deterministic, the question of libertarianism free will becomes more troublesome as then before as it was that no causal determinism = free will, which does not account for logical determinism. And so the question arises:
So what if He logically determines a future event? Is our free will nullified? If so, how?
Well I was thinking that played along the lines of "the way God created our universe" or whatever exactly you said there.
Upvote
0
I think the problem with this common theistic argument is that it really ignores what true free will and love are. If one actually wants to love someone they allow them free will, despite knowing they may not make the right choice.
Also to claim that everyone is being punished for what Adam & Eve does has at least two problems. One it ignores the individuals capacity and responsibility for their own sin. Two, it takes a fundamental literalist reading of the story of the Fall of Human beings in Genesis - which is problematic if one takes that stance. The story of Adam and Eve is more a statement on basic human nature and that we tend to decide we do not need God and can do things on our own - thus we sin.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
It is just an illustration about a Paradox between foreknowledge and free-will. It does not mean that you have to check God for the Divine's will on everything - like if you should brush your teeth or take a shower.
You confuse me with what you are saying here Sparow. At first it appears you are contradicting yourself. If I follow you correctly you have the following thought process in this paragraph.
- God cannot predict the future although he would be aware of all possibilities.
- God knows the future because God engineers the future.
- Therefore God knows what you will do in the future.
Upvote
0
Well I'm referring to their basic definitions:
Foreknowledge: possessing the awareness of something before it happens or exists.
Free Will: the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
Upvote
0
Ecco you keep stating this and I think I do follow you logic. It is a common critic of atheists that God is responsible for evil. But I question the postulation that God instilled in them a level of morality and that directly leads to God being responsible. The question I have is because the tree they eat from in the story is the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Would this not mean that the morals came after they eat of the tree and not before?
My point is, in this story it is meant to illustrate our tendency to go it without God, that we think we can do one better. Perhaps another way to say it is God created us to be in relationship with the Divine - love. But we desire more and so do not trust God and try to deal with good and evil on our own, screwing it up.
Perhaps the question is can God create a world with true love and free will that does not have evil or the possibility that evil can arise? After all evil did not start with Adam and Eve it was started with the Devils rebellion and then the Devil tricked Adam and Eve.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
That is a contradiction. Everything cannot be preordained to that whatever will come to pass will come to pass, and at the same time have freedom to do what one wants. If "whatever will come to pass" is already ordained then there you do not have a choice in what you can do, as it has already been decided what will happen.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
