God's foreknowledge and free will

[Albion]

Because I can see no way he would be able to not do so giving what I am told of his characteristics. Perhaps it will help if I try a simple analogy to explain my reasoning.

Let us say that God has only been given the foreknowledge and power to be able to create one of three possible universes. He knows that if he creates universe X he will have x happen and if he creates universe Y he will have y happen, Create Z and z will happen. So God knows at the time of creation exactly what will happen if he creates X,Y, or Z. He must then determine which outcome he wants when he creates the universe.

Now, take that and instead of only being able to create three he could create whatever he wants. However he must still decide at the time of creation exactly which of those universes is going to come about.

Does this make sense to you?

Yes, but my instant reaction was that you are assuming that something went wrong with this one. I am not so confident that we can say that, even given the famous account of Adam and Eve.

In this life that we all live, we know that many things that seem wrong or a setback on the surface, or at first glance, actually work to the furtherance of a bigger accomplishment down the road. There is every reason to think that the fall of Adam and Eve is in this category.

 

[ecco]

Because it's been referred to so often, maybe we need a careful definition or explanation as to what "levels of morality" means. What levels are there, for instance?

It's not ABCD, it's shades of gray.


In response to Dysert I posted:

Consider this godly thought process:
Considered Action - Instill level J of morality.
ForeKnowledge - Adam and Eve disobey me regarding the fruit and lead such sinful lives that they kill all their offspring.

Considered Action - Instill level L of morality. (with option 1)
ForeKnowledge - Adam and Eve disobey me regarding the fruit. I'll blame them and condemn all mankind to sin.

Considered Action - Instill level L of morality. (with option 2)
ForeKnowledge - Adam and Eve disobey me regarding the fruit. I'll take the rap and not condemn mankind.


Considered Action - Instill level O of morality.
ForeKnowledge - Adam and Eve obey me regarding the fruit and lead reasonably decent lives and try to pass their sense of morality to their offspring.

Considered Action - Instill level P of morality.
ForeKnowledge - Adam and Eve obey me regarding the fruit and lead exemplary lives. -Boring-

HE willfully and with complete ForeKnowledge, chose L with option 1.
​

In between these few examples are an infinite number of other subtle variations.

​

You admit God knew A&E were going to fail before He created them.
Yes, I think that's right. The issue is whether or not he programmed them to fall.

See Post #74

 

[Resha Caner]

So how did God, with his perfect foreknowledge and omnipotence, create a universe without determining each event that is going to occur? If each and every possible outcome is known to me and under my control I must make a concise choice to create a universe where those events come to pass.

It seems this never ceases to be an entertaining topic. I'm a bit late to the party this time, so I probably haven't grasped all the nuances that have been discussed. If all your contentions above have been accepted, the outcome may already be determined. But I will say that I don't tend to think of God in the way you've described him.

 

[Albion]

It's not ABCD, it's shades of gray.


In response to Dysert I posted:

Consider this godly thought process:
Considered Action - Instill level J of morality.
ForeKnowledge - Adam and Eve disobey me regarding the fruit and lead such sinful lives that they kill all their offspring.

Considered Action - Instill level L of morality. (with option 1)
ForeKnowledge - Adam and Eve disobey me regarding the fruit. I'll blame them and condemn all mankind to sin.

Considered Action - Instill level L of morality. (with option 2)
ForeKnowledge - Adam and Eve disobey me regarding the fruit. I'll take the rap and not condemn mankind.


Considered Action - Instill level O of morality.
ForeKnowledge - Adam and Eve obey me regarding the fruit and lead reasonably decent lives and try to pass their sense of morality to their offspring.

Considered Action - Instill level P of morality.
ForeKnowledge - Adam and Eve obey me regarding the fruit and lead exemplary lives. -Boring-

HE willfully and with complete ForeKnowledge, chose L with option 1.
​

In between these few examples are an infinite number of other subtle variations.

I think I mentioned, the first time I read the above, that you're describing theoretical "levels" of morality for GOD there, not Adam and Eve, yet it was the latter that you started out describing as being endowed with a certain level of morality when it could have been another level, etc.

Anyway, didn't you dispose of the "levels of morality" theory, in post 74, by making it moral vs immoral?

 

[ecco]

Not predetermination. Not predestination.
True Free Will and True Omniscience.

for the sake of argument...consider

• Man considers Omniscience and Free Will to be logically incompatible.
• Man's logic is based on Man's abilities.
• An ant's abilities are far more closely related to a man's abilities than man's abilities are related to a god's abilities.
• An ant can look at the Golden Gate Bridge and be completely clueless as to its origin or purpose.
• If an ant cannot comprehend the Golden Gate Bridge, then how is man supposed to be able to comprehend the feasibility of a god's omniscience and man's free will coexisting?

for the sake of argument

Yeah, you can defend any nonsensical claim about God, using this line of reasoning.

Yes! Hence for the sake of argument.

Do you consider god's omnipotence to be a nonsensical claim?

 

[Resha Caner]

Do you consider god's omnipotence to be a nonsensical claim?

I realize you're not asking me, but yes - as most use the "omni" terms - they seem rather nonsensical.

 

[ecco]

It was the "levels of morality" idea that--having been mentioned several times--caused a problem. He endowed them with free choice and instructed them on their "dos and don'ts."

How about we use the term "sense" of morality instead of "levels" of morality, although it's the same thing.

How were they to decide what to do? Did their sense of morality give them guidance? Where did they get their "sense" of morality? God instilled it into them precisely as He chose to do.

They chose to disobey. I see nothing perplexing about that.

I see nothing perplexing about that either. They made their decision based on their God given morals just as your children make decisions based on their parental inspired morals.

The difference is:
Parents inspire morals and hope for the best
God instilled morals and ForeKnew the outcome

You seem to think he had some obligation to make them such that they could NOT make a poor judgment or disobey him.

Not at all. But He should then not have blamed A&E and put mankind's SIN on their shoulders.

He could have done that, of course, but the thinking is--and the Genesis account supports it--that he wanted something better than a robot.

There are many shades between a robot and a functioning human. Again, it's not black and white, it's shades.

Even though Adam and Eve chose badly, that's what he got.

More accurately, He got what He ForeKnew He would get.

 

[Belk]

Yes, but my instant reaction was that you are assuming that something went wrong with this one. I am not so confident that we can say that, even given the famous account of Adam and Eve.

In this life that we all live, we know that many things that seem wrong or a setback on the surface, or at first glance, actually work to the furtherance of a bigger accomplishment down the road. There is every reason to think that the fall of Adam and Eve is in this category.

Sorry Albion, I think we are discussing two different things. You seem to be discussing this in relation to Christian theology. I am attempting to understand your point of view with regards to foreknowledge but lack of God having chosen the outcome since I can't reconcile it with my understanding. Am I not understanding your position correctly? Do you not believe that God is omniscient, omnipotent, the creature of the universe and yet did not direct every outcome possible?

 

[Belk]

It seems this never ceases to be an entertaining topic. I'm a bit late to the party this time, so I probably haven't grasped all the nuances that have been discussed. If all your contentions above have been accepted, the outcome may already be determined. But I will say that I don't tend to think of God in the way you've described him.

Do you not think of God as having those characteristics or do you believe they are expressed in some fashion that allows for a different conclusion?

 

[lesliedellow]

I realize you're not asking me, but yes - as most use the "omni" terms - they seem rather nonsensical.

"Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?"

When God posed that rhetorical question to Jeremiah, he clearly wasn't expecting the answer "Yes there is."

 

[ecco]

Anyway, didn't you dispose of the "levels of morality" theory, in post 74, by making it moral vs immoral?

In what part of that post did I make it moral vs immoral. I've consistently used levels of morality and lately (for you) sense of morality.

 

[Resha Caner]

"Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?"

When God posed that rhetorical question to Jeremiah, he clearly wasn't expecting the answer "Yes there is."

Indeed.

Do you not think of God as having those characteristics or do you believe they are expressed in some fashion that allows for a different conclusion?

That might be a good way to put it: they are expressed in a fashion that allows a different conclusion.

With respect to knowledge I would say God knows all that can be known. If there is a future event that cannot logically be known, then I don't understand why we expect God to know it. God foretold (through the prophets) the coming of the Christ. He knew it would happen because he used his power to insure it would happen. God has not foretold what I will eat tomorrow. He may know. But he may not know simply because it is not necessary for him to know what I will eat in order to accomplish his will. If he has decided he doesn't need to know what I will eat tomorrow, it is left to my will to make that decision.

Now, I don't know if that view would lead anyone to absolve God of the guilt of sin. IMO it does. But, if it doesn't convince you my reaction would be: OK. So what?

 

[Belk]

Indeed.



That might be a good way to put it: they are expressed in a fashion that allows a different conclusion.

With respect to knowledge I would say God knows all that can be known. If there is a future event that cannot logically be known, then I don't understand why we expect God to know it. God foretold (through the prophets) the coming of the Christ. He knew it would happen because he used his power to insure it would happen. God has not foretold what I will eat tomorrow. He may know. But he may not know simply because it is not necessary for him to know what I will eat in order to accomplish his will. If he has decided he doesn't need to know what I will eat tomorrow, it is left to my will to make that decision.

Now, I don't know if that view would lead anyone to absolve God of the guilt of sin. IMO it does. But, if it doesn't convince you my reaction would be: OK. So what?

Actually that sounds a lot like the only answer I was able to come up with that would give God foreknowledge without him being culpable for sin. The concept being that omnipotence is not knowing WILL happen but knowing every possibility that COULD happen. This he has knowledge of the future but still maintaining free will. When I explained my idea it was soundly poo poo'd by the Christians I was discussing it with.

 

[Resha Caner]

Actually that sounds a lot like the only answer I was able to come up with that would give God foreknowledge without him being culpable for sin. The concept being that omnipotence is not knowing WILL happen but knowing every possibility that COULD happen. This he has knowledge of the future but still maintaining free will. When I explained my idea it was soundly poo poo'd by the Christians I was discussing it with.

As I said, it doesn't really matter. I'm not claiming omniscience for myself, so it's mostly speculation on my part. Those who dismissed your idea may simply have another view, but in many cases I would suspect they simply aren't familiar with the body of philosophical work in this area.

There are many subtle shades close to what you and I have described. One shade (which seems close to your view) is called Molinism. I think WLC advocates for something like Molinism. My shade is of the Lutheran variety, and was best articulated by Alan Padgett - so not something I really invented. I came up with the idea on my own, but after reading Padgett realized he had largely formalized it before me. Nothing new under the sun and all that.

My suspicion is that those who reject these ideas fear it in some way detracts from God's majesty - something I don't concur with.

Anyway, since you're so close, maybe you should become a Lutheran. Hah!

 

[Albion]

In what part of that post did I make it moral vs immoral.

"A person can set bad examples for his children and teach them to to care for no one and nothing (i.e. immorality) or he can set good examples and teach them right from wrong. (i.e. morals) These actions instill various levels of morality into the child."

 

[quatona]

​

Yes! Hence for the sake of argument.

You make a poor argument for the sake of the argument??

Do you consider god's omnipotence to be a nonsensical claim?[/QUOTE]
Depends on the definition. If it includes "being able to do the illogical", then yes.

 

[Hank77]

Again, that's not a correct rendering of the predestinarian POV. All that is predetermined is salvation, not the course of everyday events.

Calvin believed that God being Sovereign meant that He did decree all things. That all the sins that men commit are not just in the foreknowledge of God but that He is the one who directs ALL of men's steps throughout their life, including the evil that they do.
I could post many statements from Calvin and other Calvinists that say this but I regress because this thread isn't specifically about Calvinism.

 

[Albion]

Calvin believed that God being Sovereign meant that He did decree all things. That all the sins that men commit are not just in the foreknowledge of God but that He is the one who directs ALL of men's steps throughout their life, including the evil that they do.
I could post many statements from Calvin and other Calvinists that say this but I regress because this thread isn't specifically about Calvinism.

Well, that is the problem I noted the minute I saw "Calvinism" made the focus, rather than predestination, foreknowledge, or some other doctrinal issue.

 

[lesliedellow]

Well, that is the problem I noted the minute I saw "Calvinism" made the focus, rather than predestination, foreknowledge, or some other doctrinal issue.

You are never likely to see predestination discussed, except within the broader context of preordination.

 

[Albion]

You are never likely to see predestination discussed, except within the broader context of preordination.

Whatever, the use of the word "Calvinism" instead of something more specific always derails this kind of discussion since, for one thing, that word can refer to all sorts of different people and beliefs.