Free Will?

[Calminian]

I understood this from the start, just didn't express it well.

Back to the original question now that I have someone who I think understands.

If God knows that 10 minutes from now I'm going to get up and fix dinner, in 10 minutes I must get up and fix dinner. I don't really have a choice because if I decided not to fix dinner then God really didn't know. And since God must be right all the time then I must get up in 10 minutes to fix dinner. It may be my decision, but God knew which one I would make.

You need to make a distinction between must happen and will happen. If your future decision is truly free, God knows it because it will happen not because it must. And if you will decide differently, God will know differently. This may seem minor, but it's vitally important. Will decide is not the same as must decide.

 

[Jim47]

I understood this from the start, just didn't express it well.

Back to the original question now that I have someone who I think understands.

If God knows that 10 minutes from now I'm going to get up and fix dinner, in 10 minutes I must get up and fix dinner. I don't really have a choice because if I decided not to fix dinner then God really didn't know. And since God must be right all the time then I must get up in 10 minutes to fix dinner. It may be my decision, but God knew which one I would make.


This sounds like my original question, and it sounds like you agree with it.

God's knowledge of what will happen does not have any effect on what we decide for ourselves. God forenew that Judas would betray His Son bet God did not interfere with what He knew would happen.

Now there are times that God clearly has done things to prevent certain things from happening, but I don't think this the rule. God listens to our prayers and answers them as He wished, not as our sinful human nature desires.

Now to make another point, God knows what will happen but we do not. We don't know what God knows nor can we even see our own future. You may think to yourself that you will get up and fix dinner in a half hour, but maybe something unexpected will come up, like an emergency? Does that help?

 

[Adstar]

I understood this from the start, just didn't express it well.

Back to the original question now that I have someone who I think understands.

If God knows that 10 minutes from now I'm going to get up and fix dinner, in 10 minutes I must get up and fix dinner. I don't really have a choice because if I decided not to fix dinner then God really didn't know. And since God must be right all the time then I must get up in 10 minutes to fix dinner. It may be my decision, but God knew which one I would make.

All I see is confusion. You still do not understand. Although you say you did. You still believe you have no real choice, about fixing dinner or not fixing dinner.

You will do what you will to do. God already knows what you will do. And from that foreknowledge He knows your eternal destination even before you where born. That does not take away the fact that you had the freedom to do as you willed to do.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Key]

You need to make a distinction between must happen and will happen. If your future decision is truly free, God knows it because it will happen not because it must. And if you will decide differently, God will know differently. This may seem minor, but it's vitally important. Will decide is not the same as must decide.

Thank you for explaing that! Great Point!

Amen Brother.

And Huston Horn, Please, Never assume anyhting about me, or what I may or may not be implying.

Gods Knowledge has no effect on my or your choices in Life.

The Inhibitaions oin your "Free Will" are more closer to home, sort to speak.

God Bless

Key.

 

[tcampen]

I understood this from the start, just didn't express it well.

Back to the original question now that I have someone who I think understands.

If God knows that 10 minutes from now I'm going to get up and fix dinner, in 10 minutes I must get up and fix dinner. I don't really have a choice because if I decided not to fix dinner then God really didn't know. And since God must be right all the time then I must get up in 10 minutes to fix dinner. It may be my decision, but God knew which one I would make.

This sounds like my original question, and it sounds like you agree with it.

Houstonhorn - your question cannot be resolved. Not by quaint analogies, nor by putting God outside of our linear timeline, or any other example. You are confused because you are correct.

To use a previous "time machine" example stated, if you went back in time and saw a kid do an act, while the kid may think he has free will to not do the act, the real question is whether he has the ability to do something else. If he can only do what is pre-known he will do, then he cannot have free will by definition - regardless.

You see, while the pre-knowledge does not force one's decision making, it does take the ability to make any actual decision away. That is the hang up of many in this thread - they equate pre-knowledge with control by the one who has that pre-knowledge. Rather, it is the absolute and perfect pre-knowledge itself (by anyone) that removes control from the decision maker - thus removing free will.

Putting God outside our "universe" fails because an omnipotent God must also be inside our universe. In fact, a major point of Christianity is that God is part of our universe and is constantly interacting with it and those in it. The whole argument just doesn't make sense.

But do not fret. The greatest philosophical minds have been unable to resolve the issue of Free Will vs. Omnipotence. It simply cannot be done, and I hope the above illustrates why the previous attempts to do so fail.

However, the issue CAN be resolved one way - faith. Part of faith is accepting something that cannot be answered logically. You can accept an omnipotent God and that you have free will on faith alone, declaring no one knows how the two can possibly co-exist, but you accept that they do anyway. If this is where your heart leads you, then there you go. I hope this helps.

 

[Calminian]

If he can only do what is pre-known he will do, then he cannot have free will by definition - regardless.

More confusion in terms. There is a difference in saying one can only do what is pre-known, and one will only do what is pre-known. Foreknowledge is based on the future decision. The future decision is not based on the foreknowledge.

Craig does a good job of refuting this faulty logic in his book.

 

[tcampen]

More confusion in terms. There is a difference in saying one can only do what is pre-known, and one will only do what is pre-known. Foreknowledge is based on the future decision. The future decision is not based on the foreknowledge.

Craig does a good job of refuting this faulty logic in his book.

I am only somewhat knowledgable of Craig's work. But my understanding is that he still relies on the "just knowing something will happen doesn't make it happen" theory, but just with more bells and whistles. Also, reliance on a "middle knowledge" theory - that god knows all the possibilities of what could occur - is a knowledge that is less than an imnipotent being would have, thus requiring a complete redefining of God as a limited being. I think Criag's work tends to appeal to those believers who need a philosophical/logical explanation to reconcile the "free will vs. omnipotence" issue, but remains a highly debated (and anything but settled) issue.

 

[Harlan Norris]

To start, let's assume God sees throughout time and knows what is going to happen. I'm guessing that's probably not too much of a stretch for most people here.

So He then knows everything I've done and everything I will do. Which means that everything I will do has already been determined.

Then how is my will free? If He knew from creation that I would be typing this post, how was it my decision to do so? I may think it was my decision, but under a God that can see through all time didn't he just plant the desire in me, negating my free will?

It has occoured to me that free will extends only as far as whether or not one will accept the salvation offered through Jesus Christ. We have the right to make this choice. If we decide to live as Christians,that choice will affect the decisions we make from that point on.

 

[Calminian]

I am only somewhat knowledgeable of Craig's work. But my understanding is that he still relies on the "just knowing something will happen doesn't make it happen" theory, but just with more bells and whistles.

Actually the book refutes the logical argument that prior knowledge of a choice implies determinism.

Also, reliance on a "middle knowledge" theory - that god knows all the possibilities of what could occur - is a knowledge that is less than an imnipotent being would have, thus requiring a complete redefining of God as a limited being.

Huh? Middle knowledge is something less than an omnipotent (I'm think you meant omniscient) being would have? Why would exhaustive knowledge of counterfactuals something less than what God should have?

I think Criag's work tends to appeal to those believers who need a philosophical/logical explanation to reconcile the "free will vs. omnipotence" issue, but remains a highly debated (and anything but settled) issue.

I would think so being that that's what the book is about (The Only Wise God)—that is if you meant omniscience rather than omnipotence.

 

[Key]

Houstonhorn - your question cannot be resolved. Not by quaint analogies, nor by putting God outside of our linear timeline, or any other example. You are confused because you are correct.

No, He is not correct.


The future knowledge is knowing what is chosen by the person, which is not to be confused with the imposing of a decision.


If you can not grasp the difference between knowing and imposing, then you are corret about yoru inability to come to a conclusion, however, ignorance is not a very good stance to have when discussion these tyapes of things.

To use a previous "time machine" example stated, if you went back in time and saw a kid do an act, while the kid may think he has free will to not do the act, the real question is whether he has the ability to do something else. If he can only do what is pre-known he will do, then he cannot have free will by definition – regardless.

But you knowledge is not pre-known, it is post known, IE: You only knew what he would do after the choice was made, and then went back in time to before the choice was made. The choice was still made, by the person, your knowledge of that choice is only because you saw what they would choose, you did not make them choose to do it.


But rather then get into time Paradoxes with you, as you seem to still be struggling with the idea that “Knowing what someone will do” is the same as “Forcing someone to do something” I doubt that such a discussion would merit you any good. So for both our sakes, lets not discuss that.

You see, while the pre-knowledge does not force one's decision making, it does take the ability to make any actual decision away. That is the hang up of many in this thread - they equate pre-knowledge with control by the one who has that pre-knowledge. Rather, it is the absolute and perfect pre-knowledge itself (by anyone) that removes control from the decision maker - thus removing free will.

Pre-Knowledge as you call it, (Such a thing does not exist, but for the sake of argument lets go with it) does not remove the ability to make a decision as a matter of point it depends on the persons ability to make a decision, as such, the idea is “I know what you will do” which is not really a great feat to tell the truth, people are predictable, (surprise surprise), the knowledge is derived from the decision, the decision is not derived form the knowledge. The Sooner you realize that, the less a problem there will be.


I guess it is not the problem by the philosophers, or the people providing the answers, but the problem lies in people receiving the knowledge, and not grasping it. (or refusing to grasp it, wither works)

Putting God outside our "universe" fails because an omnipotent God must also be inside our universe. In fact, a major point of Christianity is that God is part of our universe and is constantly interacting with it and those in it. The whole argument just doesn't make sense.

A major point of Christianity is God is Both Inside and Beyond our Universe. Just to clarify that.

But do not fret. The greatest philosophical minds have been unable to resolve the issue of Free Will vs. Omnipotence. It simply cannot be done, and I hope the above illustrates why the previous attempts to do so fail.

The problem lies in the receptors, not the teachers. Some people want there to be No Free Will, others, Believe in Free will, And yet others believe in all kinds of Hybrids and such. If you take a stance (As you seem to have) then you will denounce or decry any thing that upsets that stance. It;s our nature, very perdictable.

However, the issue CAN be resolved one way - faith. Part of faith is accepting something that cannot be answered logically. You can accept an omnipotent God and that you have free will on faith alone, declaring no one knows how the two can possibly co-exist, but you accept that they do anyway. If this is where your heart leads you, then there you go. I hope this helps.

I am sure this bit does, it's not entirely true, but it's not false either.


In service always


God Bless


Key.

 

[Bartek]

the best example, how free is the man is... Judas. He is the most tragical example how far can we be free. He seen all miracles of Jesus, heard Him every day. And finally said Him "No".
And Jesus knew, what he will do, but respected his choice.

 

[tcampen]

Huh? Middle knowledge is something less than an omnipotent (I'm think you meant omniscient) being would have? Why would exhaustive knowledge of counterfactuals something less than what God should have?

Actually, omnipotence necessarily includes omniscience, but not the other way around. It's more inclusive, which is why I use that term instead. But reliance on "middle knowledge" to resolve the issue only works if God does not also have the other forms of knowledge as well - which is not possible with an omnipotent (and thereby omniscient) God.

Hope that helps my explanation.

 

[tcampen]

The future knowledge is knowing what is chosen by the person, which is not to be confused with the imposing of a decision. If you can not grasp the difference between knowing and imposing, then you are corret about yoru inability to come to a conclusion, however, ignorance is not a very good stance to have when discussion these tyapes of things.

If you read my prior post, you will understand how I precisely addressed this issue. You are correct that foreknowledge does not impose a decision. However, you fail to grasp that the lack of an ability to make a decision other than that which is already known necessarily takes away one's free will. Does that help, or is further explanation required?

But you knowledge is not pre-known, it is post known, IE: You only knew what he would do after the choice was made, and then went back in time to before the choice was made. The choice was still made, by the person, your knowledge of that choice is only because you saw what they would choose, you did not make them choose to do it.

That's why time machines are fiction and why "cute analogies" make for poor arguments.

Pre-Knowledge as you call it, (Such a thing does not exist, but for the sake of argument lets go with it) does not remove the ability to make a decision as a matter of point it depends on the persons ability to make a decision, as such, the idea is “I know what you will do” which is not really a great feat to tell the truth, people are predictable, (surprise surprise), the knowledge is derived from the decision, the decision is not derived form the knowledge. The Sooner you realize that, the less a problem there will be.

First of all, please see my response above - it will clear up your confusion on my argument. But in case it doesn't, let me put it this way. If every decision you will ever make is already know with exact perfection, then what real choice do you have but to make those very same decisions? Where is you free will? My point is that true free will requires a point in which the actual decision is truly unknown - by anyone or any being.

I hope that helps.

 

[Calminian]

Actually, omnipotence necessarily includes omniscience, but not the other way around. It's more inclusive, which is why I use that term instead. But reliance on "middle knowledge" to resolve the issue only works if God does not also have the other forms of knowledge as well - which is not possible with an omnipotent (and thereby omniscient) God.

Honestly tcampen, you're stuck on stupid. If you don't understand something please don't act like you do. I take it from your comments you have no idea what middle knowledge is. It doesn't limit any other type of knowledge. In fact the concept necessitates exhaustive definite foreknowledge.

Your comments about omnipotence are silly. You're just trying to cover up a goof. Molinism deals with freewill and foreknowledge. There is no need to throw in a more inclusive term.

My hyper-frankism is rearing its ugly head again.

 

[Jim47]

Just a friedly reminder. This forum is not for debate between Christians. If you feel the need to debate we are instructed to go to General Theology.

 

[Key]

[/font]
First of all, please see my response above - it will clear up your confusion on my argument. But in case it doesn't, let me put it this way. If every decision you will ever make is already know with exact perfection, then what real choice do you have but to make those very same decisions? Where is you free will? My point is that true free will requires a point in which the actual decision is truly unknown - by anyone or any being.

I hope that helps.

Well beyond "The way you define Free Will, is Flawed" there is not a whole lot I can say.

See what you seem to fail to grasp is this very important issue.

Gods Knowledge comes from my Choice, my Choice does not come from what God knows.

Now, see you placed a special requirment on what is defined as "Free Will" that does not exist.

This made up need of your to impose your view that "True Free Will requires (Such and Such)" when it clearly does not. So because of that I can not resolve this issue with you, so long as you just feel that you have this authority to make up requirments. You have made discussionthis further with you completly pointless.

I guess, by your personal denifition of what you constutue free will to mean, you have generated a loop of logic,

IE: God Knows Everything,

But you define "True Free Will" for your actions to be unknown

By your own denifition, you make your view of what you perceive to be "Free Will" non-existant.

What you fail to realize is that, what you have defined is not 'Free Will', it's some made up thing of your design.

So I woudl have to conclude, that this made up thing of your can not exist, but I will repeat that what you have made up, is not "Free Will"

Another "If no problem exists, make one up" type of thing.

So Sad..


God Bless
Key

 

[Calminian]

Just a friedly reminder. This forum is not for debate between Christians. If you feel the need to debate we are instructed to go to General Theology.

I knew that post wasn't a good idea.

 

[WickedServant]

Interesting thread. This particular argument usually seems to fall apart when God is accepted to be outside of time. We often have this hatred against the idea of being destined to do certain things in the future, and being unable to direct our own lives and make our own choices.

And so we should. This reasoning is completely ludicrous; throw it out. Each one of us has the ability at any moment to do something completely irrational and spontaneous. Who holds you back? Who makes your decisions for you?

If you are destined to go to work tomorrow morning at 8:00, can you just lay in bed and time will take you there against your will?

Truly, you are the master of your own destiny; you can ask for help or direction, but you are the final authority in the choices you make.

Time is concept based on movement. The future does not exist. There is only what has been done, and what is done. I have to finish off there for now, I'll try to write more later if I can.

May you be blessed.

 

[tcampen]

Honestly tcampen, you're stuck on stupid. If you don't understand something please don't act like you do. I take it from your comments you have no idea what middle knowledge is. It doesn't limit any other type of knowledge. In fact the concept necessitates exhaustive definite foreknowledge. .

Easy on the personal attack, tiger. It's not becoming. My comment on middle knowledge is that it only works if you exclude the other types of knowledge as well. I'm sorry if you didn't pick up on that, or if I failed to explain it to your satisfaction.

Your comments about omnipotence are silly. You're just trying to cover up a goof. Molinism deals with freewill and foreknowledge. There is no need to throw in a more inclusive term. .

Actually, you are incorrect - there was no goof. I am well aware of both terms, as my explanation so plainly shows. Rather than such baseless personal attacks, why not address the issues in the OP?

My hyper-frankism is rearing its ugly head again.

I forgive you. And considering this issue has turned into a debate, it probably is more suitable for the Philosophy area.

 

[tcampen]

Now, see you placed a special requirment on what is defined as "Free Will" that does not exist.

This made up need of your to impose your view that "True Free Will requires (Such and Such)" when it clearly does not. So because of that I can not resolve this issue with you, so long as you just feel that you have this authority to make up requirments. You have made discussionthis further with you completly pointless.
Another "If no problem exists, make one up" type of thing.

Your critique is not unfair. I skipped a number of steps getting to that definition, but I by no means created it. It follows from a deterministic framework on an imnipotent God and Free Will - where an omnicient God knows everything that will happen with perfection, and that same imnipotent God puts all causes (at least original causes) in motion, with perfect knowledge of exactly what will follow as a result - including all decisions ever made by anyone, and how those decision influence subsequent decisions. The problem with omnipotence, which includes omniscience, is that it is so encompassing it leaves no room for anything outside its scope - including free will.

Taking away one's free will does not require imposing ones own will over another's otherwise free will, but can also include eliminating choices. Knowing what one's future decisions will be with exact perfection takes away that person's ability to chose otherwise, thereby eliminating free will. The opposite of that would require a moment where the decision is unknown by anyone or any being.

Does that help?

Anyway - any further discussion probably should be in the philosophy or theology area.