How can omniscience & omnipotence be compatible with free will?

[ToddNotTodd]

Let's say it's day 1 and Pete has not yet made his day 3 A/B choice. Pete could choose A or he could choose B. If God knows he will choose A, but Pete freely chooses B, then what happens to God's foreknowledge that Pete would choose A?

Your situation is akin to asking what would happen if an immovable object meets an irresistible force. It's a nonsensical question, because there's no universe in which that condition could arise.

Similarly, there's no universe where an omniscient god could be wrong about knowing something. The bottom line is that if a god knows that a person will choose A, they choose A.

 

[bricklayer]

Your situation is akin to asking what would happen if an immovable object meets an irresistible force. It's a nonsensical question, because there's no universe in which that condition could arise.

Similarly, there's no universe where an omniscient god could be wrong about knowing something. The bottom line is that if a god knows that a person will choose A, they choose A.

What's more, this is exactly the creation God chose to create, with exactly this combination of our choices.

 

[daviddub]

If foreknowledge is dependent on or determined by our actions, then it cannot exist infallibly prior to our actions being taken.


Well, let's say it's Monday and God has infallible knowledge that Pete will choose 'A' on Wednesday. Since Pete hasn't yet made his Wednesday decision of A or B, he could still potentially choose 'B'. If he chooses 'B', then either God's infallible foreknowledge becomes fallible or his foreknowledge retroactively changes - in which case, his foreknowledge of Monday would change come Wednesday from 'A' to 'B'. If that occurred, then if asked what God knew on Monday, would it have been 'A' or 'B'?

The whole issue, it seems, is that your misunderstanding of "foreknowledge" is anthropomorphic. Your supposition that God cannot know X infallibly "before" it happens, is dependent upon this presupposition: that God experiences time as we do. Hopefully I can help with what is my understanding of the issue. "Foreknowledge," is a word used to convey a much greater reality about the nature of God.

But consider this. We would use the language to explain an experience of God as "here" or "there" while this is actually only legitimate from our perspective of space. We have an anthropomorphic misapprehension of what is spatially "present," to God. What we call "here" and "there" is actually to God only here.

LIKEWISE: what we would describe as having happened "earlier" or going to happen "later" are from God's eternal perspective all presently happening now.

And so you have Jesus saying "before Abraham was I am." Now even if we could make a similar statement (because of our finite experience of time) we could at most say before abraham was I was. But he says I am, which conveys the ever presence of the past and (in other scriptures) the future.

And so His knowledge no more fixes it than if He were simply watching it presently.
All things are open unto the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.

 

[quatona]

The whole issue, it seems, is that your misunderstanding of "foreknowledge" is anthropomorphic. Your supposition that God cannot know X infallibly "before" it happens, is dependent upon this presupposition: that God experiences time as we do. Hopefully I can help with what is my understanding of the issue. "Foreknowledge," is a word used to convey a much greater reality about the nature of God.

But consider this. We would use the language to explain an experience of God as "here" or "there" while this is actually only legitimate from our perspective of space. We have an anthropomorphic misapprehension of what is spatially "present," to God. What we call "here" and "there" is actually to God only here.

LIKEWISE: what we would describe as having happened "earlier" or going to happen "later" are from God's eternal perspective all presently happening now.

And so you have Jesus saying "before Abraham was I am." Now even if we could make a similar statement (because of our finite experience of time) we could at most say before abraham was I was. But he says I am, which conveys the ever presence of the past and (in other scriptures) the future.

And so His knowledge no more fixes it than if He were simply watching it presently.
All things are open unto the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.

What you seem to be implying here is that from the perspective of god there can´t be such a thing as freewill.
I´d suggest you make up your mind whether we should look at things from the "anthropomorphic" perspective or from god´s assumed perspective. "Freewill" makes no sense from either.

 

[klatu]

That depends upon whether human will is indeed free or if there is additional freedom which the will can acquire through transcendent power? The question may no longer be rhetorical!

The first wholly new interpretation of the moral teachings of Christ for two thousand years is on the web. Radically different from anything else we know of from history, this new 'claim' is predicated upon a precise and predefined experience, a direct individual intervention into the natural world by omnipotent power to confirm divine will, command and covenant, "correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries." Like it of no, a new religious claim testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria now exists. Nothing short of a religious revolution appears to be getting under way.

 

[CaptainJoy]

When I say free will, I mean the freedom to make an unimpeded free choice between two or more things. That type of free choice is completely incompatible with omniscience & omnipotence.

Cieza, I believe this your contention:

if my actions (i.e. choices) are 100% predictable
then my actions are not a product of free will.

(I must admit, I haven't read through this whole thread, so forgive me if I'm missing your point.)

My contribution to the discussion would be that it depends on why my actions are 100% predictable. If it's because a time traveller with access to the future simply saw the choices I would make, I would still feel confident that I have free will. If it's because a brilliant psychologist wrote a CaptianJoy algorithm that could make the same choices I make, I would seriously doubt free will.

My impression is that if there exists an entity that is omniscience and omnipotence, then both bases are covered. And, I must doubt my free will, or the existence of omniscient and omnipotent being(s).

I have heard/read (not bad) arguments that free will does not exist. However, I feel like I have free will. (I concede the belief in free will is not rational.) So now I, as a Christian, have a problem: how to reconcile my belief that I have free will with my belief in the Christian God.

Personally, I'm in the "cogito ergo sum" (René Descartes "I think, therefore I am") camp. To me, the existence of free will is one of the stronger ontological arguments for God (though not sufficient to lead to the Christian God). Free will by its very nature is supernatural--it means I have the ability of action that is not the direct result of prior stimuli. Once I acknowledge the existence of a supernatural, the djinni is out of the bottle and the existence of a supernatural God becomes possible. (I may be playing fast and loose with the definition of "free will", but I think you get my meaning.)

Of course, we still haven't reconciled the problem of my free will and an omniscient and omnipotent god. As I see it, there are multiple possibilities:

1. God is not omniscient and omnipotent. For an example of this type of god (or more accurately, demiurge) google "God as a game designer".
2. We do not have free will. (Entirely possible.)
3. We have a semantic argument. E.g. Free will is behavior that is impossible to predicted vs. Free will is behavior that is divorced from purely materialistic phenomena. The first definition is incompatible with omniscient and omnipotent being(s), the second is not.

 

[Viren]

I think we have some freewill, but it's within the parameters of God's will. Let's say there's a stream and God makes it flow into a particular lake. We are like fish in this stream and free to swim wherever we want within it, but ultimately we will end up in the lake.

 

[elopez]

But where the fish swim are all in God's foreknowledge. He intends the fish to swim this way and that way. If God knows before hand what the fish will do and he is the creator then he created the fish to do what he knew beforehand they would do. God wills his entire creation. To say something has will apart from his own is like saying that possibly someone can interfere with his will, alter it, change it. God has complete control over his creation as he wills it.

I believe you are making the fallacious connection of knowledge equating to causation. God's foreknowledge does not make events happen, and just because God foreknows something doesn't necessarily mean He intended it to happen. The foreknowledge of God simply means that He is consciously aware of the future, or in other words God knows what will happen based on our behavior.

If it is said that God intended everything He foreknows, then He intends for sin to happen which really doesn't coincide with passages such as 1 John 1:5, James 1:13, Proverbs 6:16 - 19. There is no sin in God's nature so He would not intend for it to happen. God does not will His entire creation as that would imply even more that God is the author of sin, which again speak directly against the above Scripture.

God's revealed will is that which God has command us to do, such as the ten commandments and the command in the Garden of Eden with first man. God does not physically force us to obey His commandments, so there is the potentiality of disobeying God and going against His will. For example we could say that God's will is for man to not murder, yet if man murders another he is going against God's will. That is what sin is anyway. That does not suggest we alter God's sovereign will in any way.

If God created everything then he also created my will. Scripture tells us that there is nothing that exists that he did not make. He is the creator of everything that exists. And the will is something that exists. My thoughts are something that exist. My actions are something that exist. Everything that is came from God, he created it, made it, brought it into existence.

There is one question that one who claims God has created everything has never answered that hopefully you can. If God created literally everything, does that mean that men did not really build skyscrapers or buildings? Cars or trains? Wouldn't we have seen God creating those things?

It is for this reason that I do not think it is correct to say God created literally everything yet everything exists because of God. If not for God creating and developing man, we would not have been able to make buildings and cars. So when we say that God directly created our will it makes even less sense. We are not created in the same fashion that Adam and Eve was. We are bore from our mothers. Our will derives from our parents which derived from our first parents.

The reason why people believe God gave them free will is because they have no connection to God. They don't see themselves as entirely made by God; but separate from their creator for a variety of reasons.

If you do not believe God gave man free will, then I also must ask what you make of Genesis 2:16: "And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die"?

 

[elopez]

With Adam and Eve God had the foreknowledge that they would choose to eat from the tree of knowledge between good and evil. God made the tree knowing full well that they would choose to eat from the tree. He could not have made the tree but it was his will that Adam and eve choose the tree or else he would not have made the tree. He knew they would transgress and this was his will that they do so.

I understand that you think knowledge = intent but I don't see that as the case. Simply repeating yourself does nothing to further show why you think that, just makes for arguing in a circle. So, without repeating yet again that you think foreknowledge equates to God's will, can you support the idea?

If foreknowledge exists before the actual creation of the matter does that not become the will of creation? Does that not become God's plan?

Again not necessarily, no. If foreknowledge exists prior to the event actually happening, all foreknowledge is is God being consciously aware of what is going to happen, not that the foreknowledge makes the event happen. If God foreknows of someone murdering another, yet has already commanded against murder, then how can you say that what God foreknows (being murder) is part of His plan? Murdering is against the will of God, so to say that just because He has foreknowledge of murder means it is part of His plan seems contradicting.

God intends to allow that foreknowledge to occur. If it was against the will of God he would not allow it to occur. My argument here is that foreknowledge is part of God's creative will. God thought it up first before it happened therefore he created it.

So are you denying that murder is against the will of God? Murder happens and God has commanded against it and obviously foreknows of it, so according to this logic how does murder occur? Your argument doesn't seem to logically follow...

God created sin. Because there is not one thing made that he did not make--that is in scripture. God didn't sin, he merely created it. I mean what is the nature of holy God if it is not reflected in fire. God created everything in creation, good and evil--that is reflective of a holy God.

Sin is not something that could be created as it is not of physical or material substance such as with the earth when it was created. Thus, to say that sin is something 'created' by God is to commit the fallacy of equivocation. That is why if you says "God created sin," they actually do mean that God committed sin as to 'create' would be the incorrect terminology. What you mean is that God caused sin, which unfortunately for you does mean that God sinned. A Holy God has nothing to do with the origin of sin, which again why your argument doesn't honestly follow.

The thought of the empire state building was with God before it was with man. It was the Spirit of God that moves all things that directed man to build skyscrapers, cars or trains. God is in all of his creation, not separate from it. God works in all things even our wills. We don't have to profess faith for God to be working in our wills. Everything is made from God and comes from God. There is nothing that exists that is apart from God.

You say the buildings were in though with God before it was with man yet mere conception again does not equate to causation. In other words, that God had perceived of buildings is not the same as saying God directly created the building. You said God created everything which would encompass the buildings, so my original question still stands.

 

[elopez]

Foreknowledge with God is the same as creation.

Aside from this, honestly the rest of your post did not even come close to addressing our earlier conversation, but if you want to ignore that part then that's on you.

It is not the same. Again, foreknowledge is the attribute of being consciously aware of what will happen in the future, not actually creating what will happen in the future. I am not saying what God foreknows He doesn't create, but rather as God foreknows everything it does not follow that He creates everything He has foreknown. Once more, that would be to equivocate the meaning of 'create.'

 

[bricklayer]

Aside from this, honestly the rest of your post did not even come close to addressing our earlier conversation, but if you want to ignore that part then that's on you.

It is not the same. Again, foreknowledge is the attribute of being consciously aware of what will happen in the future, not actually creating what will happen in the future. I am not saying what God foreknows He doesn't create, but rather as God foreknows everything it does not follow that He creates everything He has foreknown. Once more, that would be to equivocate the meaning of 'create.'

Your assumption is that God is objective.
To know a thing objectively is to know it as it is.
Objective forknowledge is to know a thing as it will be.
God is not objective, He is necessary. God knows necessarily not objectively.
God knows His creation exhaustively and apart from its existence.
"Forknowledge" is an anthropomorphism called an anthropoisis,
an assigning to God a chronological sequence of intellectual perceptions.

God does not have a chronological sequence of intellectual perceptions, He has eternally present intellectual conceptions.

One of the most significant differences between God's ideas and our ideas is the fact that we are not the first ones to have our ideas.

 

[elopez]

Your assumption is that God is objective.

I stopped here because this is your assumption that for some unknown reason why you think I am assuming. First, what lead you to conclude this??

I'll let you know now though that I do not believe God is objective.

 

[bricklayer]

I stopped here because this is your assumption that for some unknown reason why you think I am assuming. First, what lead you to conclude this??

I'll let you know now though that I do not believe God is objective.

Scrolling back up I see that you were quoting another.
My bad.

 

[:æ:]

It is not the same. Again, foreknowledge is the attribute of being consciously aware of what will happen in the future, not actually creating what will happen in the future.

But when you believe that God simultaneously knew what the future would be as a consequence of his deciding to create precisely this universe, it follows that he willingly and deliberately caused that future.

For simplicity and illustration, consider that God could make a decision like this: create universe X which he foreknows will include future events A, B and C, or create universe Y which he foreknows will include future events D, E and F. When God decides which universe to create, he has also decided to create those future events which he foreknows will follow from his creation. Deciding to create universe X instead of Y is tantamount to creating events A, B and C, since he knows they must follow from his decision.

I am not saying what God foreknows He doesn't create, but rather as God foreknows everything it does not follow that He creates everything He has foreknown.

If he foreknows everything at/before the moment of creation, then there is no difference. He has essentially created every event in the total future of the universe at one single instant: the moment of creation.

 

[elopez]

But when you believe that God simultaneously knew what the future would be as a consequence of his deciding to create precisely this universe, it follows that he willingly and deliberately caused that future.

It actually does not follow. You're confusing correlation with causation. Foreknowledge is correlated to the future in that God knows what will happen. The future that God foreknows is the one where we choose to act how we please.

For simplicity and illustration, consider that God could make a decision like this: create universe X which he foreknows will include future events A, B and C, or create universe Y which he foreknows will include future events D, E and F. When God decides which universe to create, he has also decided to create those future events which he foreknows will follow from his creation. Deciding to create universe X instead of Y is tantamount to creating events A, B and C, since he knows they must follow from his decision.

The only thing absent from your argument is your support for the idea that foreknowledge = causation. How does mere knowledge make something happen? That doesn't make sense as knowledge is not a causal relation. If God foreknows of universe x and decides to create that universe, A, B, and C are all things we choose to engage in. God does not physically cause us to engage in A, B, or C.

Therefore knowledge =/= causation. To say otherwise is to argue erroneously from the post hoc.

If he foreknows everything at/before the moment of creation, then there is no difference. He has essentially created every event in the total future of the universe at one single instant: the moment of creation.

At the moment of creation the only thing that is created is probably matter, not the total of the future. God foreknowing what will happen is not saying that what He foreknows 'exists' right then as what He foreknows has not actually taken place yet. The event foreknown does not 'exist' as an actuality or reality, as reality is the state of things as they actually exist rather than how they will or are going to exist.

 

[:æ:]

It actually does not follow. You're confusing correlation with causation. Foreknowledge is correlated to the future in that God knows what will happen. The future that God foreknows is the one where we choose to act how we please.

Ah, but it does follow, and you're begging the question. There is no choice if God already knows the future. All choices are merely illusions, lest it be possible for God's knowledge to be wrong, in which case it isn't knowledge at all.

If God knows that A, B and C will happen as a consequence of his decision to create universe X as opposed to Y, then A, B and C cannot fail to happen, so a person cannot choose A' or B' or C' despite any illusions that he may.

The only thing absent from your argument is your support for the idea that foreknowledge = causation.

How does mere knowledge make something happen?

Creation with foreknowledge = causation.

That doesn't make sense as knowledge is not a causal relation. If God foreknows of universe x and decides to create that universe, A, B, and C are all things we choose to engage in. God does not physically cause us to engage in A, B, or C.

Unless it is your contention that everyone has volitional input on God's decision to create universe X, then you're merely begging the question as I outlined above. I cannot choose event A' if God already knows infallibly that A will occur. Calling it a choice doesn't make it one.

Therefore knowledge =/= causation. To say otherwise is to argue erroneously from the post hoc.

That's like saying a perfect marksman is not responsible for the trajectories of his perfectly fired bullets because simply knowing with 100% certainty where his bullets would travel does not mean he caused his bullets to go where he has aimed them.

At the moment of creation the only thing that is created is probably matter, not the total of the future.

If the future is not created simultaneous with the rest of the universe, then what is it that God knows?

God foreknowing what will happen is not saying that what He foreknows 'exists' right then as what He foreknows has not actually taken place yet. The event foreknown does not 'exist' as an actuality or reality, as reality is the state of things as they actually exist rather than how they will or are going to exist.

It does not make sense to say something is known which does not exist.

 

[bricklayer]

Here's something about Christianity that doesn't add up right to me:

Christians have said that God knows everything and can do anything. That means he knows the future or events which have yet to occur. He would therefore know today that a human being (we'll call him Pete) is going to choose 'A' instead of 'B'. However, since Pete has an unimpeded free will decision up until the time he makes his decision of either A or B, Pete could potentially choose B after God knew he was going to choose A. Can someone reconcile this?

We have free wills, but we don't have intellectual conceptions. We have intellectual perceptions. We don't conceive ideas, we perceive ideas.
One of the most significant differences between God ideas and our ideas is the fact that we are not the first ones to have our ideas.
We have free wills, but we do not have secret wills.
This is exactly the creation God chose to create, with exactly this combination of free will choices, knowing it completely apart from its existence.

 

[elopez]

Ah, but it does follow, and you're begging the question. There is no choice if God already knows the future. All choices are merely illusions, lest it be possible for God's knowledge to be wrong, in which case it isn't knowledge at all.

I believe it is you who is question beginning, for if it is not ourselves that makes choices contingent on our desires, then who does make our choices? By way of foreknowing our choices God does not choose what we do for us. We choose ourselves.

If God knows that A, B and C will happen as a consequence of his decision to create universe X as opposed to Y, then A, B and C cannot fail to happen, so a person cannot choose A' or B' or C' despite any illusions that he may.

It is not being disputed that God has infallible foreknowledge and so cannot be wrong about what He foreknows, but just because God foreknows our choices does not mean we cannot choose. Think about that statement, re-read it, and then respond. A, B, and C are no more an illusion than the physical universe x.

Think of a crystal ball that can look into the future. Once we look into the crystal ball we see what is going to happen in the future, and it is not as if by way of looking that we make what we look at happen. What we look at happens because those who we are looking at are choosing to act like such because that is how they wish to act.

Creation with foreknowledge = causation.

Yes creation and foreknowledge equate to causation, but without creation and merely foreknowledge as I have been saying, it would not equate to causation. Even then not everything God foreknows He creates, so God does not cause everything to happen by way of merely foreknowing it.

Unless it is your contention that everyone has volitional input on God's decision to create universe X, then you're merely begging the question as I outlined above. I cannot choose event A' if God already knows infallibly that A will occur. Calling it a choice doesn't make it one.

Again, it is you who begs the question: If you cannot choose to engage in A, then who does choose to? Not God, not your friend. You do choose to engage in A, and that is what God has foreknown. Saying it isn't a choice doesn't make it a choice lol.

That's like saying a perfect marksman is not responsible for the trajectories of his perfectly fired bullets because simply knowing with 100% certainty where his bullets would travel does not mean he caused his bullets to go where he has aimed them.

It's actually far from saying that. Creation and foreknowledge equal causation, not just foreknowledge. Knowledge is not a causal relation as has been pointed out.

If the future is not created simultaneous with the rest of the universe, then what is it that God knows?

God knows everything from eternity and eternity is not the moment of creation. Again, the future of say for example me choosing A does not exist with the rest of the universe at the moment of creation as A is not a reality. Reality is the state of some affair as it actually exists, not as it is going to exist which is how God foreknows.

It does not make sense to say something is known which does not exist.

It would depend on what it means here to 'exist.' As noted above the event A foreknown does not 'exist' as an actuality when it is foreknown, but the event 'exist' in the mind of God, that is conceptually and consciously.

 

[elopez]

If the foreknowledge exists before the physical reality then wouldn't it be intelligent to assume that the physical reality originated from the foreknowledge?

You would think so, wouldn't you? A good analogy I heard from another poster would appear as if it not is not so intelligent to assume such. Imagine a crystal ball that once looked into one could see the future. Say you look into it and see the future, yet it is not by looking that the future happens but because we make the future happen that it is foreknown.

This is not to say the physical reality 'exists' first, but rather the physical reality exists conceptually in the mind of God. Or in other words, what God foreknows is what we choose to do.

We don't even have to call it foreknowledge. We can call it a divine thought. It is the thought that existed first. From the thought, God must bring what is in that thought into existence; therefore he is the creator.

Call it whatever you want. The thought yes, but God does not bring every thing He foreknows into existence. God does not create everything He foreknows. If He did, then He would create things presently just as He did with the earth and we would be able to observe them.

In his thought is all your actions ands thoughts (your entire life). From his divine will he must bring out, into creation, your thoughts and actions (your entire life); therefore he is the creator.

God doesn't have to 'bring out' my actions in order for them to happen. Because God foreknows my actions they must occur no matter what. I bring out my actions which is what God foreknows, so essentially I bring out what God foreknows. God is the creator, but not by virtue of mere foreknowledge. It is just not sensible.

From him you come. Not you from yourself. The thought of you existed before you existed. Your origin is in the thought of God, therefore, you are created entirely. You didn't will yourself into existence. You began as a thought and God is the one who brought you out of his thoughts. Your life was in his thoughts and he brought your life out of his thoughts, therefore, he created you entirely. Your will was in his thought and he brought your will out of his thoughts, therefore, he created you entirely.

I do not come from God directly. I come from my parents directly. I come from God's first created man and much earlier his ancestors. I am not saying I will myself into existence I am saying I was born into existence in a way. Yes we could say God foreknew of that but that doesn't mean by God foreknowing it I am created in the same way the earth or universe was.

 

[:æ:]

I believe it is you who is question beginning, for if it is not ourselves that makes choices contingent on our desires, then who does make our choices?

What part of "There is no choice if God already knows the future" was not clear to you? You question is nonsense because there is no choice in a universe where infallible foreknowledge exists.

By way of foreknowing our choices God does not choose what we do for us. We choose ourselves.

Wrong. I've already explained why this is wrong. Go back and re-read my argument, because it apparently did not sink in the first time.

It is not being disputed that God has infallible foreknowledge and so cannot be wrong about what He foreknows, but just because God foreknows our choices does not mean we cannot choose.

That's precisely what it means, in fact. In order for real choice to exist, there must exist multiple real future possibilities. However, if more than one future were legitimately possible, then it means God's knowledge could be wrong, which is incompatible with infallible foreknowledge. Therefore either choice does not exist or infallible foreknowledge doesn't exist. You can't have both.

Think about that statement, re-read it, and then respond. A, B, and C are no more an illusion than the physical universe x.

It is clear from this statement that you do not understand what my argument is saying. I've never suggested that events themselves are illusions. I've suggested that the appearance of choices are false appearance. To repeat myself: If God knows infallibly that I will do A, then it is impossible for me to do A' or A'' (these are alternatives to A which I might have had the choice of had it not been known that A was and must be the future). If God allegedly knows I will do A, then I cannot "choose" A' or A''. I do not have a choice.

Think of a crystal ball that can look into the future. Once we look into the crystal ball we see what is going to happen in the future, and it is not as if by way of looking that we make what we look at happen.

What we look at happens because those who we are looking at are choosing to act like such because that is how they wish to act.

We are not creators of the universe, but God is. I ALREADY MADE THAT ARGUMENT.You need to spend less time typing and more time digesting the arguments I present you.

Yes creation and foreknowledge equate to causation, but without creation and merely foreknowledge as I have been saying, it would not equate to causation.

SO WHAT??? We're talking about GOD here, genius. Unless you have some uncannily unique god-concept that does not describe god as being creator of the universe, then this point is utterly irrelevant.

Even then not everything God foreknows He creates

Yes He does. He created them the instant He created the universe and knew them.

so God does not cause everything to happen by way of merely foreknowing it.[/quote

]
Again, irrelevant.

Again, it is you who begs the question: If you cannot choose to engage in A, then who does choose to?

THERE IS NO CHOICE. How can I make this any more clear to you? If God knows that tomorrow I will wake up at 7:30, then I can't choose to sleep in to 8:00 or else God's knowledge would be wrong. Do you see that, Poindexter?

It's actually far from saying that. Creation and foreknowledge equal causation, not just foreknowledge. Knowledge is not a causal relation as has been pointed out.

What does that have to do with God, seeing as how he actually is a creator and a foreknower?

God knows everything from eternity and eternity is not the moment of creation.

If everything is known simultaneously, then all events must exist simultaneously.

Again, the future of say for example me choosing A does not exist with the rest of the universe at the moment of creation as A is not a reality.

It must in order for God to know it.

Reality is the state of some affair as it actually exists, not as it is going to exist which is how God foreknows.

There is no difference when everything is already known. The universe is just one long video tape. The whole movie exists at the same time on the same cassette, even if you only look at one part of it at a time.

It would depend on what it means here to 'exist.' As noted above the event A foreknown does not 'exist' as an actuality when it is foreknown, but the event 'exist' in the mind of God, that is conceptually and consciously.

This is completely wrong for reasons already given in plenty.