Freewill-Omniscience Paradox

[arizona_sunshine]

Matthew 26

33 Peter answered and said unto him, Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended.

34 Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

35 Peter said unto him, Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee. Likewise also said all the disciples.

Later in the same chapter...

69 Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee.

70 But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest.

71 And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth.

72 And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man.

73 And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech bewrayeth thee.

74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crew.

Christ told Peter events that would take place in the future. Peter never imagined he would fulfill this prophecy. But Christ knew better than Peter the compromising position Peter would be placed in, and the imperfect heart that would lead Peter to question himself.

Christ's prophecy did not infringe upon Peter's agency. The experience, actually, humbled Peter and strengthened his testimony.

 

[spike]

The first point I would argue is that it is not clear that omniscience requires knowledge of the future.

Seebs, I agree.. this one came up in a discussion on 'predestination' vs. free will.. I had penned the following in response with regards to omniscience's relationship to predestination (which I do not ascribe to), and my viewpoint that God need not be able to foretell the future to be labelled 'Perfect' or 'Omniscient'...

Hmm.. This is true. Yet, it implies a paradox of sorts. I can see that they are two different phenomenon in a way, yet, it would seem that for omniscience of future events to occur, it must be that predestination also exists, as one cannot be separated from the other. Always knowing what will happen means that there was, in reality, no choice - - at what point did the knowledge of the future vary or change? It cannot, therefore, predestination - the concept that the journey and its events are set and unchanging - must exist, and free will cannot.

Some things to consider with this scenario:

1) If one is omniscient of future events, then one cannot actually change them, and predestination exists, since they would be altering the future into one not previously seen, ergo, not a possibility if truly omniscient of future events. To imply otherwise would say that more than one future event/conclusion is possible or exists. We couldn't change what we know must happen, therefore, predestination it is...

2) If one is merely omniscient of all present and past knowledge, and omniscient of a range of possible future outcomes, then predestination does not actually exist. However, neither does absolute knowledge of what will happen in the future - - only knowledge of the range of future possibilities. Therefore, free will exists.

3) If God is omniscient of future events as being 'already determined' as opposed to a range of possibilities, why bother setting up our existence as it stands today? There would be no purpose in choices (free will), since there really isn't one to be had. Therefore, the creation of individuals who would not serve or believe the Word would be of no use to our Heavenly Father, as their course of action was determined by Him (He created them, and He knew what they would do). Likewise, the selection of choices that those who chose to follow him are presented with (that they wouldn't choose anyhow, as their future is decided by God knowing how they will choose) is unnecessary as well. These choices are actually wasteful uses of God's supreme knowledge and creation. God is not typically wasteful.

4) Can not God have a Perfect Knowledge of All, without a knowledge of how all must turn out? Noah's ark is such a perfect example of why this would be more likely than having omniscience of future events.. Somehow, the whole exercise seems incredibly inefficient as a way to right a situation that He knew would come about in the first place.. and why did He set it up as such if He had Perfect Knowledge of how future events would turn out anyway?

5) Wouldn't omniscience of future events also remove an element of control from His grasp - after all, He cannot know what would happen unless He set up the scenarios himself.. therefore, we are back to seeing that predetermination/predestination must exist under this viewpoint.. otherwise, who set up the scenarios if God is merely omniscient of the outcome (which He cannot change, see #1)?

6) So, can it be that God, while omniscient of all knowledge past and present, and knowledgeable of a range of future possibilities, does not actually foretell the future in detail, but rather employs free will to affect it? Since we are created in His image, why would we be given actual free will if He did not possess it Himself? (otherwise, we are back at predetermination..)

OK, I've even gotten myself confused.. but the point remains.. I do not see that our Father in Heaven must possess the ability to see the future in all of it's gory detail in order to be Perfect and Omniscient. Neither do I see that it would serve any of his purposes to have created us as He did if He was so.

Arizona_Sunshine, I should have remembered the passage you quoted.. mea culpa (BTW, folks, she's quite good at finding these things..). But, I can see this as fitting in with Jesus's knowledge of the demeanor of His disciples, and being cognizant of the range of possibilities, or fulfilling a prophecy - in of itself, a foretelling of a future event, but not indicative of foretelling all future events with such detail. Perhaps this is why Revelations is so vague..

I am not so literate as many who are responding to this thread, but it is a fun read!

-spike-

 

[bloodofthelamb12]

I see no paradox in the belief that God is omniscient yet allows us to have our free will... Consider this: if I build a small wooden box and look in, I can see everything within the box, correct? Yet, despite my knowledge of everything inside the box, I have not forced any actions upon the things within (asides from maybe existence). In saying that God "fast-forwards and rewinds time," you've made the mistake of placing the Creator within the creation. God's box is only different from mine in its dimensions and size; it consists not only of length, width, and depth, but also of time; its size? The universe. God is on the outside of the entirety of creation looking in; he is Alpha and Omega, simultaneously. He sees not only beginning and end, but also everything at the same time. Get it?

The concept of prayer, and the answers thereof are also very intriguing as well when one considers this box analogy. Our prayers, which we lift up from earth to the God beyond time, hang in the air of heaven, eternally resting before God. This is also why God cannot be overwhelmed by the sheer number of prayers we lift, or bored with the tedium of listening to so many of them. If He gets bored with my prayer, He can just give Peter or Paul a listen and go right back to mine. Every prayer I'll ever pray is already there! Its an odd thought, but if our prayers transcend time and space to the realms of the Almighty, every last one is but a single piece of our fragrant gift to our Father...

"And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand." (Revelation 5: 8)

Where this "box" analogy really gets some momentum is when you start talking about incidents like the Incarnation (of Christ). Let's suppose my box had been bigger, say the size of my house with no roof; I could get inside anywhere I wanted (albeit with the aid of a helicopter, but I'm not claiming to be omnipotent - lol ). The same is true of God: except, yet again, HIS box is four dimensional. God climbed in, did what He wanted to do, then got back out. And he also got back in later on in our concept of history, but considering His omnipresence and time-transcending nature, He could do both if He wanted to. I hope some of that made sense; if not, make another post and have me clarify. Hope I helped to, c ya - may God guide you on your way to the day of your salvation and beyond...

 

[R.E.Taet]

Saying that because one knows another's actions, therefore he is the cause of them - is absurd.

I know that the Sept. 11 attacks happened, but I am not its cause.

Just because God knows my future does not mean that He is the cause of it.

I know that people will disagree with this. But I am not the cause of thier disagreeing

To know and to cause are two very seperate things.

 

[spike]

-

Saying that because one knows another's actions, therefore he is the cause of them - is absurd.

I know that the Sept. 11 attacks happened, but I am not its cause.

Just because God knows my future does not mean that He is the cause of it.

The question revolves around the concept of having knowledge of the future. You know of the events of Sept. 11th because they have already happened.

If God creates all, and knows of all future events, then God has created/planned those future events, therefore:

1) There is no actual free will, and

2) Predestination exists.

There can be no actual free will when the final choice is already known.

I do not agree with the scenario of predestination, because I believe in the concept of free agency for the reasons stated above.

 

[R.E.Taet]

If God creates all, and knows of all future events, then God has created/planned those future events

You are saying that God knows therefore God is the cause.

But I do not think that just because one is aware (even if he is aware before hand) of something that one is the nesacary cause of it.

For example - If God told us that tomorrow it would rain - we would have foreknowledge of the rain, yet we would not be its cause.

 

[Haud_Solus]

GOD is ONE

 

[spike]

You are saying that God knows therefore God is the cause.

Or, more completely, If God knows, then God is the cause, because He creates All.

We would have no part in it. Free will would not exist.

I do not believe in this scenario. I have always considered that God need not know of the future to be Perfect and omniscient of all knowledge, because the future does not exist; therefore, it is not 'knowledge' at all.

 

[R.E.Taet]

Or, more completely, If God knows, then God is the cause, because He creates All.

Well, if we agree that God created all, then what we disagree on is whether or not God knew our choices before they were made.(the future)

You say if God knew, he was therefore the cause

I say: If God told me what you are going to do tomorrow, you would still be the cause.

To know before hand is not To cause.

Rom 8:29 Because whom He foreknew, He also predestined [to be] conformed to the image of His Son, for Him to be the first-born among many brothers [and sisters].

 

[Magisterium]

Everyone here seems to miss an important belief about God. That belief is that God has no parts. Namely no physical parts or components. Therefore, for the remainder of my post, in order to maintain this distinction, I will refer to God as simply "being" while I will refer to mankind as "existing".

Since God is believed to have no "existing" parts, He is necessarilly outside of time. This is a logical necessity because the fundamental aspect of "existence" is change. (Actually, it's motion, but motion is change in position). Likewise, all that "exists" is subject to time which is only (in reality) a linear measure of change. If you still follow me at this point, I'm doing better that I imagined I would...

In fact, in the Old testament, when Moses asks God who he should tell the Isrealites His name is, God responds with an imperfect tense (imperfect in that the tense is not discernable) of the verb "to be" which is generally rendered into english "I am who am".
(as opposed to a perfected tense which might have been:
"I am who is[present tense]",
"I am who was [past tense]", or
"I am who will be [future tense].)

At any rate, I only give this background because such discussion assumes that our time based limitations on aquiring knowledge (namely that what we are to learn must already "exist") cannot be logically assumed to apply to a realm where change (and therefore time) do not apply.

In a less philosophical/theological nutshell, we "exist" in a box with limitations. God is believed to possess His being outside of that box. Therefore the limitations associated with that box should not be extended to He who is outside of it.

 

[Natro]

I lack the belief that there is no God therefore, just as atheists, I don't have to justify my belief. Thus God exists

Off topic but isn't lack of no a double negitive? Isn't that just claiming a positive. ie: I don't don't think imps exist= I think imps exist.

 

[Magisterium]

Everyone here seems to miss an important belief about God. That belief is that God has no parts. Namely no physical parts or components. Therefore, for the remainder of my post, in order to maintain this distinction, I will refer to God as simply "being" while I will refer to mankind as "existing".

Since God is believed to have no "existing" parts, He is necessarilly outside of time. This is a logical necessity because the fundamental aspect of "existence" is change. (Actually, it's motion, but motion is change in position). Likewise, all that "exists" is subject to time which is only (in reality) a linear measure of change. If you still follow me at this point, I'm doing better that I imagined I would...

In fact, in the Old testament, when Moses asks God who he should tell the Isrealites His name is, God responds with an imperfect tense (imperfect in that the tense is not discernable) of the verb "to be" which is generally rendered into english "I am who am".
(as opposed to a perfected tense which might have been:
"I am who is[present tense]",
"I am who was [past tense]", or
"I am who will be [future tense].)

At any rate, I only give this background because such discussion assumes that our time based limitations on aquiring knowledge (namely that what we are to learn must already "exist") cannot be logically assumed to apply to a realm where change (and therefore time) do not apply.

In a less philosophical/theological nutshell, we "exist" in a box with limitations. God is believed to possess His being outside of that box. Therefore the limitations associated with that box should not be extended to He who is outside of it.

 

[Outspoken]

Off topic but isn't lack of no a double negitive? Isn't that just claiming a positive. ie: I don't don't think imps exist= I think imps exist.

Its actually the same logic used to justify the athiestic belief without evidience, ie a "non" belief.

 

[Outspoken]

In a less philosophical/theological nutshell, we "exist" in a box with limitations. God is believed to possess His being outside of that box. Therefore the limitations associated with that box should not be extended to He who is outside of it.

This is it exactly. We cannot conceive of a being outside of time and therefore God knowing and it not being 'set' is a paradox for us, because we are bound by time and space.

 

[Vegan Charity]

Everyone here seems to miss an important belief about God. That belief is that God has no parts. Namely no physical parts or components. Therefore, for the remainder of my post, in order to maintain this distinction, I will refer to God as simply "being" while I will refer to mankind as "existing".

Since God is believed to have no "existing" parts, He is necessarilly outside of time. This is a logical necessity because the fundamental aspect of "existence" is change. (Actually, it's motion, but motion is change in position). Likewise, all that "exists" is subject to time which is only (in reality) a linear measure of change. If you still follow me at this point, I'm doing better that I imagined I would...

In fact, in the Old testament, when Moses asks God who he should tell the Isrealites His name is, God responds with an imperfect tense (imperfect in that the tense is not discernable) of the verb "to be" which is generally rendered into english "I am who am".
(as opposed to a perfected tense which might have been:
"I am who is[present tense]",
"I am who was [past tense]", or
"I am who will be [future tense].)

At any rate, I only give this background because such discussion assumes that our time based limitations on aquiring knowledge (namely that what we are to learn must already "exist") cannot be logically assumed to apply to a realm where change (and therefore time) do not apply.

The primary problem with a god who exists outside of time:
If God sees all events as they happened/happen/will happen, from the Beginning to the End simultaneously, then you have to assume if God created everything in a way where it would unfold exactly the way he saw it, then logically you have to assume the universe is predetermined and has been predetermined from the very start.

 

[truthquest]

I think we are trying to fit God into our limited frame of reference. Time does not exist outside this life as we see it. We see things as linear. We can't comprehend time or the lack there of outside of this world because that is all we know. It's like asking a blind person to describe or experience the color purple.

So the question comes if God knows "ahead of time" if we will turn out "evil" or "bad" then why create the "bad" people? One healthy approach for all of us is to stop looking at things as "evil" and "bad". I choose to look at some people as enlightened and others who are misguided and need help. And yes there are some seriously misguided individuals in this world.

With that in mind lets take a more simplistic approach to life. Think of it like school. A long hard day at school but when 3pm finally hits you are elated. The troubles we face in life will seem no worse than the shot of a hyperdermic needle on an eternal scale. Who wouldn't take a shot in the arm to make themselves better? Our life here is so small compared to eternity. We are here to learn the power of forgiveness and compassion for those who are less fortunate. To strengthen our love. Love brings us closer to God. Without pain and sorrow we have no concept of forgiveness and compassion. I believe that we were spirit beings before we entered this world. We had a divine awareness of the kinds of challenges we would face. Some brave spirits chose to be challenged to an even greater degree by facing disease, handicap or tragedy. Our spirits grow to the degree we are challenged and how well we handle those challenges. Our loving God gave us his blessing and allowed us to go on this adventure called life in order to strengthen us. It's not about "evil" vs. "good". It's about growth and unity. In the end we will judge ourselves. We will review our own lives. We will empathically feel the joys we brought and the sorrows we caused. For many it will be a humbling experience. God doesn't have to judge us when we will have to face "the wrath" of our own judgement in the end. But after all is said and done we will find out that God still loves us and will be waiting for us with open arms. We will fall down on our knees claiming that we don't deserve his forgiveness and love. Then he will pick us up and embrace us. That is the power of his love and the power of our purpose here in life.

 

[tcampen]

Jer,

That still doesn't solve the paradox. Even using the argument that God percieves everything outside a linear time frame the way we do, and omnipotent must, necessarily, also pervieve all that occurs in the universe linearly as well. And if something is known with absolute perfection and certainly infinitely long before what will occur, then nothing else can occur by definition. This would include human behavior. Free will can only exist in a state of some uncertainty at a point prior to the decision being made. Absolute foreknowledge of what a choice will be eliminates the ability to do anything else. Thus, if we can only do what is know, we cannot have free will to do otherwise.

This logical paradox has never been resolved, and honestly can't be if you recognize the definitions of free will and omnipotence. So, rather than trying to force a square peg into a round hole, just lean on faith that perhaps God can do things we cannot comprehend, and accept it on that level. But to say it can be resolved rationally and logically is simply foolish.

 

[Magisterium]

The primary problem with a god who exists outside of time:
If God sees all events as they happened/happen/will happen, from the Beginning to the End simultaneously, then you have to assume if God created everything in a way where it would unfold exactly the way he saw it, then logically you have to assume the universe is predetermined and has been predetermined from the very start.

This assumption negates the fact that foreknowledge and causation are separate entities. What's happening here is that the fact that for a human being in this time-based existence to know with certainty what is to happen, then that person must have some hand in making it happen. However, this is not the case for God who is believed to exist outside of time...