Does God have free will?

[Everybodyknows]

If God exists outside of time then He is a constant, unchanging Being

Constant and unchanging being is in agreement with scripture, no?

Who has no thoughts i.e. mental changes over time. Choices require changes in mental states over time. If God created time He cannot have changes in mental states and therefore cannot have free will. If He doesn't have free-will what is He? He's more like the Star Wars "force", a non-thinking emotionless unchanging photo.

This is where it gets tricky and dependent on how exactly we conceptualize timeless states. Timeless states don't prevent us having things arranged in logical sequences, for example there could be a stack of books arranged in alphabetical order. This order makes as much sense temporally as it does atemporally. I previously gave the analogy of a ball resting on a cushion, causing an indent in the cushion. This casual relationship also makes sense atemporally. We would still logically say the ball is the cause of the indent, not the other way around.

You give the example of timelessness being like an 'unchanging photo', but what if you viewed it as an unrolled reel of film on the table before us, so that we can view all frames at once? Instead of watching the film on a screen frame by frame, giving us a sense of temporal succession, we have now essentially 'collapsed' the time dimension into just another spacial dimension, meaning we can observe multiple points on the timeline simultaneously in much the same way as I can simultaneously see the left side and the right side of the wall in front of me. Instead of having temporal relationships between events we now just view them as a logical sequence, all at once. We can still observe the actors thoughts, choices, actions etc, and can identify causal relationships between things.

As such I believe it is possible in some sense for thought, emotion and will to exist atemporally.

Although I will agree with you that it seems incredibly difficult to preserve free will outside of time. I'm struggling to see any way in which timeless states can be anything other that fully deterministic. Even if we allow for will, that will isn't free and is determined by factors outside of itself. In the example of the film strip there is no possibility of the sequence being anything other than what it is. We wouldn't expect our film to possibly have a different ending every time we watched it. So in that sense I agree that God is somewhat reduced to a force acting according to the laws of his nature.

A logical contradiction of being outside of time found at Divine Immutability | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy :

Here is a truth that I know: that it is now 2:23pm. That is something I couldn’t know a minute ago, and it is something that I won’t know in a minute. At that time, I’ll know a different truth: that it is now 2:24pm. Either God knows such temporally indexed truths—truths that include reference to particular times at which they are true—or not. If God does not know such truths, then he is not omniscient, since there is something to be known—something a lowly creature like me does, in fact, know—of which God is ignorant. Since very few theists, especially of a traditional stripe, are willing to give up divine omniscience, very few will be willing to claim that God is ignorant of temporally changing truths like truths about what time it is.

If God is omniscient, then God knows such temporally changing truths. If God does know such temporally changing truths, then God changes, since God goes from knowing that it is now 2:23pm to knowing that it is now 2:24pm. And worse, God changes with much more frequency, since there are more fine-grained truths to know about time than which minute it is (for instance, what second it is, what millisecond it is, etc.) If God knows such truths at some times but not at others, God changes. And if God changes, divine immutability is false. So if God is omniscient, he is not immutable. Therefore, God is either not immutable or not omniscient. And since both views are explicitly held by traditional Christianity (and other monotheisms) there is a problem here for the traditional proponent of divine immutability.​

​

This is only a contradiction if we view God as being in time. Scroll down to the last 2 paragraphs of the section you quote which outlines an atemporal response. I find this a reasonably satisfactory answer.

 

[TaylorSexton]

I will say at his point, @YouAreAwesome, that I have no intention of getting into any kind of argument. My days of that, as far as I can help it, are over. I know all to well where these conversations lead on these types of social media—nowhere good very fast. I would rather bow out now while things are cordial than for this conversation to delve into division. Keep reading, keep pondering, and keep learning, friends.

 

[Everybodyknows]

Time is measurable. Eternity by definition is not measurable. Time by definition cannot be eternal, because it would then not be time, because we could not measure it.

Is the universe not eternal with respect to the future? I can still make a meaningful measure of distance even though distance extends infinitely in any given direction.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Time is measurable. Eternity by definition is not measurable. Time by definition cannot be eternal, because it would then not be time, because we could not measure it.

The number line extends eternally in the positive and negative directions but we use it for measurement. In fact, there are an eternal number of points between 0 and 1 but the distance between 0 and 1 is still 1 unit. The concept of eternity, and the ability to measure, are in no way contradicting each other. In the same way time is both eternal and temporal. William Lane Craig holds a view that includes both eternal and temporal time.

To say that because God in Scripture comes down in the form of an angel that he therefore exists inside time is a non sequitur; it simply is not a necessary logical entailment. Even so, you are still assuming that God, in doing this, is not simply condescending to our understanding (as he does by the very nature of Scripture).

How do you explain this passage from the eternalism perspective? What do you mean by "condescending to our understanding" with regard to actually entering the world? Do you believe He came down and had a look around?

Well, then you still have to deal with conflicting Scriptures. Regardless, the meaning is not at all unclear; God was going to do something, and then he didn't. It was then inscripturated in way in which fallen man can understand. In the end, the problem you raise doesn't really exist because we do not form a theology about anything from just one statement, but from the "whole counsel of God."

I agree we shouldn't proof-text our systematic theology, but we can't just write off 40 or so verses all saying basically the same thing as all being anthropomorphisms.

Take, for instance, James when he says rather unequivocally that with God "there is no variation or shadow due to change" (Jas. 1:17).

I find this to mean God's perfectly loving character does not change.

 

[Everybodyknows]

I will say at his point, @YouAreAwesome, that I have no intention of getting into any kind of argument. My days of that, as far as I can help it, are over. I know all to well where these conversations lead on these types of social media—nowhere good very fast. I would rather bow out now while things are cordial than for this conversation to delve into division. Keep reading, keep pondering, and keep learning, friends.

Oh.. Please stay. I'm sure things can remain amicable.

 

[Everybodyknows]

We simply cannot approach God like rationalists. Our reason is fallen and imperfect...
...but the fact that our fallen logic cannot comprehend God

I don't think our logic our fallen. We have discovered the laws of logic after all, and most Christian philosophers hold that they originate from the divine nature. Where we fail is that we have imperfect knowledge so we are prone to make faulty assumptions that lead to faulty conclusions. So I think we can freely rely on logic to lead us to truthful conclusions, but always keeping in mind that our assumptions may not be correct. this is why debate can be useful, to help us identify our faulty assumptions.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Constant and unchanging being is in agreement with scripture, no?

A few verses at face value seem to point in that direction, but which ones are specifically saying this? I would say He has an unchanging character - Love, He is a constant source of Life, Creativity, Inspiration etc. What exactly is meant by "constant and unchanging"? Greek thought places Him as perfect, therefore there can be no more changes to Him because a change is either making Him better or worse. I disagree. Change doesn't have to be better or worse.

This is where it gets tricky and dependent on how exactly we conceptualize timeless states. Timeless states don't prevent us having things arranged in logical sequences, for example there could be a stack of books arranged in alphabetical order. This order makes as much sense temporally as it does atemporally. I previously gave the analogy of a ball resting on a cushion, causing an indent in the cushion. This casual relationship also makes sense atemporally. We would still logically say the ball is the cause of the indent, not the other way around.

You give the example of timelessness being like an 'unchanging photo', but what if you viewed it as an unrolled reel of film on the table before us, so that we can view all frames at once? Instead of watching the film on a screen frame by frame, giving us a sense of temporal succession, we have now essentially 'collapsed' the time dimension into just another spacial dimension, meaning we can observe multiple points on the timeline simultaneously in much the same way as I can simultaneously see the left side and the right side of the wall in front of me. Instead of having temporal relationships between events we now just view them as a logical sequence, all at once. We can still observe the actors thoughts, choices, actions etc, and can identify causal relationships between things.

As such I believe it is possible in some sense for thought, emotion and will to exist atemporally.

I disagree (obviously) with whole timeless construction (I could give reasons but but I don't really think it matters because conceptualizing something doesn't necessarily mean it's true).

Although I will agree with you that it seems incredibly difficult to preserve free will outside of time. I'm struggling to see any way in which timeless states can be anything other that fully deterministic. Even if we allow for will, that will isn't free and is determined by factors outside of itself. In the example of the film strip there is no possibility of the sequence being anything other than what it is. We wouldn't expect our film to possibly have a different ending every time we watched it. So in that sense I agree that God is somewhat reduced to a force acting according to the laws of his nature.

Ya. So the next question is, is it better to have free will or be determined? Surely free will is better, hopefully this is obvious, I could give examples of why it's better but I'll leave it as assumed for now. Then if free will is better, yet God doesn't have free will, then God is not perfect. But God is perfect. So timelessness is false.

This is only a contradiction if we view God as being in time. Scroll down to the last 2 paragraphs of the section you quote which outlines an atemporal response. I find this a reasonably satisfactory answer.

Do you mean Brian Leftow's response?

 

[Everybodyknows]

A few verses at face value seem to point in that direction, but which ones are specifically saying this? I would say He has an unchanging character - Love, He is a constant source of Life, Creativity, Inspiration etc. What exactly is meant by "constant and unchanging"? Greek thought places Him as perfect, therefore there can be no more changes to Him because a change is either making Him better or worse. I disagree. Change doesn't have to be better or worse.

I tend to agree with you on this. There are scriptures either way. Strong immutability seems difficult to defend in light of some of the scriptures you have brought up previously.

I disagree (obviously) with whole timeless construction (I could give reasons but but I don't really think it matters because conceptualizing something doesn't necessarily mean it's true).

Oh, I knew you would disagree. I'm not arguing that's is true I'm making the case that an atemporal God or an eternal temporal God are both logically self consistent ideas, in light of your claim that atemporal God was self contradictory. I'm not committed to either view, but it seems by far that most Christians favour God being outside of time (that of course doesn't make it right).

Ya. So the next question is, is it better to have free will or be determined? Surely free will is better, hopefully this is obvious, I could give examples of why it's better but I'll leave it as assumed for now. Then if free will is better, yet God doesn't have free will, then God is not perfect. But God is perfect. So timelessness is false.

Better is merely a matter of opinion. I don't see free will as being a necessary requirement for perfection. It's difficult for humans to assess perfection in any meaningful way anyway.

Do you mean Brian Leftow's response?

No. This:

A final response is due to Eleonore Stump and Norman Kretzmann. Their response assumes divine eternity, which implies, in part, that God is atemporal. They argue that the claim that God knows what time it is now is ambiguous between four readings, depending on whether the “knows” is understood as an eternally present or temporally present verb, and depending on whether the now refers to the temporal now or the atemporal now. Thus, God knows (eternally or temporally) what time it is now (that is, in the temporal present or the eternal present). Nothing can know what time it is in the eternal present, since in the eternal present there is no time. So we must understand the sense of ‘now’ to be ranging over the temporal present and not the eternal present. God, since eternal, cannot know at the present time, but must know eternally. So the only viable reading of the four possible readings is God knows eternally what is happening in the temporal present. Consider the following inference introduced earlier: “If God does know such temporally changing truths, then God changes, since God goes from knowing that it is now 2:23pm to knowing that it is now 2:24pm.” This inference, Stump and Kretzmann claim, does not hold when it is disambiguated as they disambiguate it. For God eternally knows that at different times different truths are true, for instance, that it is now (at the temporal present) a certain time, but he knows these truths in one unchanging, atemporal action. God’s eternal knowledge not only doesn’t allow for change; it positively rules change out, since change is inconsistent with eternity. God eternally knows what is happening now, and at every other time, but in so knowing doesn’t go from being one way to being another. Rather God simultaneously knows (on the assumption of divine eternity) in one act of knowing all temporally indexed truths (Stump and Kretzmann, 1981, p 455-458).

This response requires the assumption of divine eternity, which may be a cost for some defenders of divine immutability. Also, it requires an understanding of simultaneity that can allow for God to be simultaneous with all times, but not entail that all times be simultaneous. Stump and Kretzmann offer such an account of simultaneity. (For more on this topic, see Leftow (1991) chapters 14 and 15.)

 

[Tayla]

If God knows all, including his own future

I don't think God knows the future; that idea sounds like something from an early Greek philosopher. More likely is: God creates the future once he knows everyone's desires.

 

[Tayla]

God is outside of time, so "his own future" makes no sense.

Yes. But I think he also is in time. When God creates something, he indwells it.

 

[Radagast]

Yes. But I think he also is in time. When God creates something, he indwells it.

In general, I think that is false.

Of course, Jesus lives in time.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

yes, God had the freedom to create whatever he wanted.

 

[Radagast]

Is the universe not eternal with respect to the future?

"Eternal" gets used with two meanings -- "timeless" and "unbounded in time."

 

[Tayla]

Was he free to plan creation? Was there some point at which he didn't know whether he was going to create or not? That would imply that he doesn't know the future. If he always knew he was going to make creation, and the exact nature of that creation, then how was he free to plan?

God didn't wait in time until it was time to create, nor did he at some certain time plan it (then later do it). God creates time (then indwells it) as needed to achieve his will.

We think time flows continuously because there is always another instant in time. God is always everywhere and everywhen yet continuously creating more wheres and whens. Before he creates something existing somewhere and somewhen, it doesn't exist.

His intent and plan and execution are all parts of one creative act; we assume they are separate because we are viewing it from within the where and when he created.

 

[Tayla]

What exactly is meant by "constant and unchanging"? Greek thought places Him as perfect, therefore there can be no more changes to Him because a change is either making Him better or worse. I disagree. Change doesn't have to be better or worse.

I find the old Greek views about change and causation and perfection and such very unsatisfying; very contrived. But this system is still dominant in Christianity via Augustine, Aquinas, and etc.

 

[thesunisout]

Is he free to will what he wills?

Why wouldn't He be?

 

[Everybodyknows]

"Eternal" gets used with two meanings -- "timeless" and "unbounded in time."

In this case I'm referring to the latter. Time will continue ticking into the future indefinitely. We wouldn't expect time to suddenly cease of its own accord.

 

[Everybodyknows]

In general, I think that is false.

Of course, Jesus lives in time.

Do you mean only during his time on earth?

 

[Everybodyknows]

Why wouldn't He be?

For the numerous reasons already raised in this thread

 

[Tayla]

In general, I think that is false.

Of course, Jesus lives in time.

Jesus is God, so therefore, God lives in time.