Foreknowledge as Determinism

[elopez]

I would suppose this is mainly for those who accept the foreknowledge of God as accurate. Though the doctrine is, I would say, pretty widely rejected among Evangelists and other sects, I believe it is the most consistent with scripture and reasoning, which is why it could obviously be discussed with one who does reject this doctrine. The foreknowledge of God is knowledge of the future before the future has happened. It is infallible, exhaustive knowledge of all future happenings. So if God foreknows of something that something will transpire no matter what. The event God has foreseen cannot not happen; it must and will happen. In a way this only means foreknowledge is deterministic, as will be explained.

Say for example God foreknows x is going to do y at t. X will engage in y at t, and if x engages in some other action, say z at t, then God's foreknowledge is incorrect. Though the foreknowledge of God is infallible, so if God foreknows x will do y at t, then x will carry out y at t. In other words, x can do nothing other than carry out y at t.

In one sense foreknowledge is deterministic in that again whatever God foreknows must and will happen and nothing other than that will happen. This is known as logical determinism which indicates propositions about the future are either true or false in relation to our understanding them. So that it may rain in Lansing Michigan on May 13, 2012 is either true or false. For God however it is different as He already knows if is going to rain or not and if God foreknows it was going to rain then it would logically follow it would rain.

In another sense determinism is seen as foreknowledge as the view that all future events are results of earlier obtaining conditions whose occurrence is sufficient enough for the future occurrence. So if the earlier conditions and factors obtain then the future events will happen as follows. This comes easier to apprehend more concisely in the saying that "all events have causes." This is causal determinism. Every event has an antecedent cause that stems all the way back to the first creative act, so it is therefore the first creative act from God eternally foreknown to be taken that is the beginning to the causal chain of events that leads to today.

So foreknowledge is deterministic, but determinism is not discordant from man's will as most question. This is recognized as compatibilism, which to me is the most sensible theology on the foreknowledge and free will quandary. We can say that God still has foreknowledge and is deterministic, yet man is nevertheless held responsible for his actions. This is done by pointing out that free will as defined according to the argument from fatalism is meaningless as free will is ill defined. More could be discussed on this specific issue of free will and foreknowledge, but only upon desire 'cause I fear this post is long enough as is.

So, any thoughts? Do you think foreknowledge is deterministic and why or or why not?

 

[dcyates]

I would suppose this is mainly for those who accept the foreknowledge of God as accurate. Though the doctrine is, I would say, pretty widely rejected among Evangelists and other sects, I believe it is the most consistent with scripture and reasoning, which is why it could obviously be discussed with one who does reject this doctrine. The foreknowledge of God is knowledge of the future before the future has happened. It is infallible, exhaustive knowledge of all future happenings. So if God foreknows of something that something will transpire no matter what. The event God has foreseen cannot not happen; it must and will happen. In a way this only means foreknowledge is deterministic, as will be explained.

Say for example God foreknows x is going to do y at t. X will engage in y at t, and if x engages in some other action, say z at t, then God's foreknowledge is incorrect. Though the foreknowledge of God is infallible, so if God foreknows x will do y at t, then x will carry out y at t. In other words, x can do nothing other than carry out y at t.

In one sense foreknowledge is deterministic in that again whatever God foreknows must and will happen and nothing other than that will happen. This is known as logical determinism which indicates propositions about the future are either true or false in relation to our understanding them. So that it may rain in Lansing Michigan on May 13, 2012 is either true or false. For God however it is different as He already knows if is going to rain or not and if God foreknows it was going to rain then it would logically follow it would rain.

In another sense determinism is seen as foreknowledge as the view that all future events are results of earlier obtaining conditions whose occurrence is sufficient enough for the future occurrence. So if the earlier conditions and factors obtain then the future events will happen as follows. This comes easier to apprehend more concisely in the saying that "all events have causes." This is causal determinism. Every event has an antecedent cause that stems all the way back to the first creative act, so it is therefore the first creative act from God eternally foreknown to be taken that is the beginning to the causal chain of events that leads to today.

So foreknowledge is deterministic, but determinism is not discordant from man's will as most question. This is recognized as compatibilism, which to me is the most sensible theology on the foreknowledge and free will quandary. We can say that God still has foreknowledge and is deterministic, yet man is nevertheless held responsible for his actions. This is done by pointing out that free will as defined according to the argument from fatalism is meaningless as free will is ill defined. More could be discussed on this specific issue of free will and foreknowledge, but only upon desire 'cause I fear this post is long enough as is.

So, any thoughts? Do you think foreknowledge is deterministic and why or or why not?

Well, you already know what my answer is and why.

 

[bling]

This is one of the philosophical arguments used by the Open Theology or Open View to try to show “foreknowledge” is not compatible with free will.

The problem with the scenario is it assumes God is in our sequencing of events (limits God to our time frame). Einstein’s theory of relativity has 100 years of experimental support (some OV do not think relativity is right), so how “relative” is time?

If you change the sequence of events for God (God is in his own time relative to man’s time) then the sequence for God could be: In man’s time frame, you made a free will moral decision yesterday that God of today knows about and sends that information back to himself in a previous time. God “knows” historically (in His time frame) what you will do (have done already). God is not knowing what you “will do” in the future as far as He is concerned, He knows what you did do in your future.

 

[elopez]

This is one of the philosophical arguments used by the Open Theology or Open View to try to show “foreknowledge” is not compatible with free will.

The problem with the scenario is it assumes God is in our sequencing of events (limits God to our time frame). Einstein’s theory of relativity has 100 years of experimental support (some OV do not think relativity is right), so how “relative” is time?

If you change the sequence of events for God (God is in his own time relative to man’s time) then the sequence for God could be: In man’s time frame, you made a free will moral decision yesterday that God of today knows about and sends that information back to himself in a previous time. God “knows” historically (in His time frame) what you will do (have done already). God is not knowing what you “will do” in the future as far as He is concerned, He knows what you did do in your future.

Saying God knows what I did in my future implies the future has happened already as an actuality when in fact it has only been conceptualized from God's eternal knowledge. As the event has not actually happened yet it is what I will do in the future. The knowledge of the event precedes the actual event so it cannot be said that the event has already took place or talk as if it has.

If god is within our time frame there is change, which suggests that god would not be perfect. An open god and a perfect god are at odds ends, as it would require for an open god to change his ontological existence in order to require knowledge of creation.

 

[bling]

Saying God knows what I did in my future implies the future has happened already as an actuality when in fact it has only been conceptualized from God's eternal knowledge. As the event has not actually happened yet it is what I will do in the future. The knowledge of the event precedes the actual event so it cannot be said that the event has already took place or talk as if it has.

If god is within our time frame there is change, which suggests that god would not be perfect. An open god and a perfect god are at odds ends, as it would require for an open god to change his ontological existence in order to require knowledge of creation.

We can only grasp our own understanding of time. What does relative time mean to you and how relative can it get?

God through the prophets does the best He can to communicate on our level, the idea of time being relative has taken us 100 years to digest and we still have a problem with Einstein’s Theory.

How do you know your future has not happened as far as God is concerned?

I agree we would not have this conversation in the first century, but today with the theory of wormholes it sounds plausible.

Do you have some scientific evidence or even a theory that shows wormholes are impossible?

 

[wpage]

God foreknew everything.

 

[elopez]

We can only grasp our own understanding of time. What does relative time mean to you and how relative can it get?

To me I would say it means that time is not experienced by everyone in the same manner. For example someone in California experiences time differently than I would in Michigan. Time would therefore not be considered absolute.

God through the prophets does the best He can to communicate on our level, the idea of time being relative has taken us 100 years to digest and we still have a problem with Einstein’s Theory.

Are you suggesting that the only way God can communicate on our level is through prophets? God has various methods of communication, not just through prophets.

How do you know your future has not happened as far as God is concerned?

I am saying that God knows my future before it has happened, so in a way my future has happened as far as God is concerned, but not as an actuality just conceptually.

I agree we would not have this conversation in the first century, but today with the theory of wormholes it sounds plausible.

Do you have some scientific evidence or even a theory that shows wormholes are impossible?

Well as you know there is no observational evidence of wormholes, so the theory is simply a hypothetical feature of space. I'm not the one spouting out this belief of wormholes, it is you who brought it up and claim they are plausible, so why not show evidence to support this? What evidence, if there even is any (which I highly doubt) is there that a natural process to which a wormhole could be produced in the context of relativity?

 

[ivebeenshown]

Foreknowledge is not deterministic in the sense that God decided on our decisions for us. So I think I agree with your view on compatibilism.

 

[Dorothea]

I'm sorry....I got confused with all the x's, y's, and t's. I'm not comprehending well today.

God knows everything. We still choose what we do daily.

 

[elopez]

Foreknowledge is not deterministic in the sense that God decided on our decisions for us. So I think I agree with your view on compatibilism.

No it is not. Though foreknowledge is deterministic in the the logical and causal sense.

 

[elopez]

I'm sorry....I got confused with all the x's, y's, and t's. I'm not comprehending well today.

God knows everything. We still choose what we do daily.

I figured it would be a little confusing but still thought it a well explanation on how man does not have the ability to do otherwise. So our ability to choose ought to be looked at differently in light of that. We still have the ability to exercise the choice we ultimately desire, but we cannot choose other than how we originally would have because God knows everything.

 

[Terene]

Foreknowledge of God never means that God somehow caused every single thing under heaven to happen. God indeed can cause things to happen, but that will always be very consistent with His own revealed will and His nature. For instance, God can foreknow about Judas' betrayal, but God is not the direct cause or determining factor for Judas' betrayal. God, being just and infinitely holy, cannot directly cause an evil like betrayal to happen in His universe. Same thing with the devil. The devil rebelled against God, and God foreknew that such rebellion is going to occur, but it cannot be said that God directly caused or determined such rebellion. God cannot be commanding us to obey Him, while on the other hand, He directly causes His own created angel to rebel against Him. It is not only contradictory, but outrightly blasphemous to even have such a thinking.

Foreknowledge is totally different from causation. Such are almost never 100% compatible.

 

[elopez]

Foreknowledge of God never means that God somehow caused every single thing under heaven to happen. God indeed can cause things to happen, but that will always be very consistent with His own revealed will and His nature. For instance, God can foreknow about Judas' betrayal, but God is not the direct cause or determining factor for Judas' betrayal. God, being just and infinitely holy, cannot directly cause an evil like betrayal to happen in His universe. Same thing with the devil. The devil rebelled against God, and God foreknew that such rebellion is going to occur, but it cannot be said that God directly caused or determined such rebellion. God cannot be commanding us to obey Him, while on the other hand, He directly causes His own created angel to rebel against Him. It is not only contradictory, but outrightly blasphemous to even have such a thinking.

Foreknowledge is totally different from causation. Such are almost never 100% compatible.

I never stated that foreknowledge is equivalent to causation. I said foreknowledge is deterministic in the logical and casual sense. If you thought by "causal" I meant God causes things to happen you misread what I said. I said with first creative act which God did cause, there is such thing as causal determinism.

Indeed, foreknowledge does not mean that the knowledge itself makes the event happen. Foreknowledge simply means God is consciously aware of the event before it happens.

 

[Nanopants]

Shouldn't this be in the Christian philosophy section? Regardless, my post has almost nothing to do with theology, and is meant only as an interesting alternative hypothesis.

What if cause-and-effect is bidirectional?

There are some very interesting studies that were done on the probabilistic wave-nature of quantum particles (and I wish I could quote something concrete here, but I read of these studies in a journal which I sadly misplaced). In any case there was a strong correlation that was shown between an event when manipulating photons further along on a time scale and an observable anomaly that had occurred previously in time.

If it is true that cause-and-effect can work "backwards", it would seem to suggest that "now" is the collision of two opposing flows of causality.

 

[Rick Otto]

So foreknowledge is deterministic, but determinism is not discordant from man's will as most question. This is recognized as compatibilism, which to me is the most sensible theology on the foreknowledge and free will quandary. We can say that God still has foreknowledge and is deterministic, yet man is nevertheless held responsible for his actions. This is done by pointing out that free will as defined according to the argument from fatalism is meaningless as free will is ill defined. More could be discussed on this specific issue of free will and foreknowledge, but only upon desire 'cause I fear this post is long enough as is.

So, any thoughts? Do you think foreknowledge is deterministic and why or or why not?

Everyone mark your calenders.
Rick Otto grees with a Roman Catholic.

I never stated that foreknowledge is equivalent to causation.

I totaly agree. Omniscience isn't causitive, but it is an accessory to omnipotence.

Indeed, foreknowledge does not mean that the knowledge itself makes the event happen. Foreknowledge simply means God is consciously aware of the event before it happens.

indeed, ergo by allowing consequences to ensue, God passively asserts sovereignity over His creation (all reality), no?

 

[elopez]

Shouldn't this be in the Christian philosophy section? Regardless, my post has almost nothing to do with theology, and is meant only as an interesting alternative hypothesis.

What if cause-and-effect is bidirectional?

There are some very interesting studies that were done on the probabilistic wave-nature of quantum particles (and I wish I could quote something concrete here, but I read of these studies in a journal which I sadly misplaced). In any case there was a strong correlation that was shown between an event when manipulating photons further along on a time scale and an observable anomaly that had occurred previously in time.

If it is true that cause-and-effect can work "backwards", it would seem to suggest that "now" is the collision of two opposing flows of causality.

I was thinking about putting it there but I usually see more ethical related threads reserved there, so as I figured as this dealt with theology this would be the second best place. I'm not really sure where it appropriately belongs but all I know is it's here.

If cause and effect can work backwards to me that defeats the idea of an eternal Creator of the universe. Is that almost like saying the universe would have created God? What if the universe didn't spawn God?

I'm curious at what point in time would this concept of bidirectional cause/effect would have begun? As of now the evidence concludes a cause is related to the effect in that the latter is a result of the former.

As the theory is but only interesting your next task should be finding that article and lending me the link

 

[Rick Otto]

What if cause-and-effect is bidirectional?

Quantum physics asserts or confirms (?) that observation of an event influences it (if I'm not mistaken).

 

[elopez]

Everyone mark your calenders.
Rick Otto grees with a Roman Catholic.

I totaly agree. Omniscience isn't causitive, but it is an accessory to omnipotence.

indeed, ergo by allowing consequences to ensue, God passively asserts sovereignity over His creation (all reality), no?

I'm assuming this may be a first you come to terms with something a Catholic has said? Really, so extravagant it needs to be on the calender? Haha.

Omniscience isn't causative but omnipotence is. God passively and directly asserts sovereignty over creation.

 

[Rick Otto]

Hi elopez.
I've enjoyed what few other posts of yours I've seen.=)
I was raised RCC so I know what it it does & doesn't mean, bro.

Omniscience isn't causative but omnipotence is. God passively and directly asserts sovereignty over creation.

Glory charismatic halleluja! So true, so true.
I say omnipotence is an accessory to omnipotence tho, because divine omnipotence isn't subject to whim, rather "determinate counsel" is employed (Acts2:23).

You nicely rendered man's moral responsibility/integrity intact, good sir.
Admirably done!

Now let us defend God's good sovereignity against allegations of "authorship" (versus "creator of") evil; Isa:45:7)

 

[Terene]

I never stated that foreknowledge is equivalent to causation. I said foreknowledge is deterministic in the logical and casual sense. If you thought by "causal" I meant God causes things to happen you misread what I said. I said with first creative act which God did cause, there is such thing as causal determinism.

Indeed, foreknowledge does not mean that the knowledge itself makes the event happen. Foreknowledge simply means God is consciously aware of the event before it happens.

I must admit I was a bit confused over the terminologies you used. Thank you for clarifying them up here.