How can omniscience & omnipotence be compatible with free will?

[GrayAngel]

Right. I'm saying that God's knowledge came first, but it did not lead to your choosing. It simply came first, it was not the cause of your choosing. I think the Saturn analogy needs more fleshing out, it's not quite the same (also it confused me a bit cause the planet was named after the Roman god).

If God's watching you decide between Kool-Aid, you can choose blue or red, but God knows your heart and thoughts, meaning he knows which flavor you like better and which one you'll decide on. But he's not forcing you to pick either one, or denying you from picking either one. You pick it out of your own preference.

But if God created me, then didn't He give me my preference for blue Kool-Aid? If God made me, then He not only knew my choice ahead of time, He already made the decision for me.

 

[elman]

But if God created me, then didn't He give me my preference for blue Kool-Aid? If God made me, then He not only knew my choice ahead of time, He already made the decision for me.

Nope. He may have known what you were going to decide, but the decision is yours not His.

 

[elman]

EDIT: Second thought, I found something here that sort of summarizes what I've been trying to say in the first place. What do you guys think?

"A being with free will, given two options A and B, can freely choose between A and B.
God is omniscient (all-knowing).
God knows I will choose A.
God cannot be wrong, since an omniscient being cannot have false knowledge.
From 3 and 4, I will choose A and cannot choose B.
From 1 and 5, omniscience and free will cannot co-exist.

Premises 1 and 2 in the outline above are the main premises to the argument and are not disputed. The Christian worldview argues that every human being is a free moral agent and is capable of making choices simply by exercising their will, not under compulsion or because of instinct. Also, it is a long held doctrine of Christianity that God is all-knowing. The Bible says that God knows "the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10)." For omniscience to be truly knowledgeable it must be correct knowledge, so premise number 4 is also granted.

However, point number 5 is where the logic falters. Those who argue in this manner make the mistake of thinking that because God possesses knowledge about a specific matter, then he has influenced it. That does not follow at all. Just because God can foresee which choice you will make, it does not mean you couldn't still freely choose the other option.

Let me give you an example. I have a five year old son. If I were to leave a chocolate chip cookie on the table about a hour before dinner time and my son was to walk by and see it, I know that he would pick up the cookie and eat it. I did not force him to make that decision. In fact, I don't even have to be in the room at all. I think I know my son well enough, though, to tell you that if I come back into the kitchen the cookie will be gone. His act was made completely free of my influence, but I knew what his actions would be.

In examining the argument, the assumption is made in premise 3 that because God knows I will choose A somehow denies me the choice of B. That is the premise that Christianity rejects. Omniscience and free will are not incompatible and it is a non-sequitor to claim otherwise."

deleeted.

 

[Hakan101]

But if God created me, then didn't He give me my preference for blue Kool-Aid? If God made me, then He not only knew my choice ahead of time, He already made the decision for me.

Not necessarily. While he may have given you a preference for blue Kool-Aid, he also gave you a mind that can think and discern and perhaps try red Kool-Aid. There's nothing that denies you from choosing a certain Kool-Aid, though you may prefer blue, you could reason with yourself that it might be worth trying red.

I think I understand what you mean though. To some sort of degree, we have qualities given to us by God that influence us in ways we cannot control. Shortly before I became a Christian, I was going through a hard time in which I often had violent thoughts towards my brother. We were in high school, and sometimes got into bad fights. Each time we fought, I felt so angry it was like I was not controlling myself. But I could not bring myself to hurt him, because I saw that he was just as angry as I was, and if I did not relent we would just fight until one of us seriously injured the other. On one hand, it could be said I "made the right choice", but on the other hand, could I (myself specifically, knowing my own character) really have chosen to hurt my own brother?

 

[elman]

Not necessarily. While he may have given you a preference for blue Kool-Aid, he also gave you a mind that can think and discern and perhaps try red Kool-Aid. There's nothing that denies you from choosing a certain Kool-Aid, though you may prefer blue, you could reason with yourself that it might be worth trying red.

I think I understand what you mean though. To some sort of degree, we have qualities given to us by God that influence us in ways we cannot control. Shortly before I became a Christian, I was going through a hard time in which I often had violent thoughts towards my brother. We were in high school, and sometimes got into bad fights. Each time we fought, I felt so angry it was like I was not controlling myself. But I could not bring myself to hurt him, because I saw that he was just as angry as I was, and if I did not relent we would just fight until one of us seriously injured the other. On one hand, it could be said I "made the right choice", but on the other hand, could I (myself specifically, knowing my own character) really have chosen to hurt my own brother?

Yes I think you could have.

 

[Hakan101]

Yes I think you could have.

Yeah, I think you're right. It sure sounds poetic to ask the question though.

 

[Cieza]

EDIT: Second thought, I found something here that sort of summarizes what I've been trying to say in the first place. What do you guys think?

"A being with free will, given two options A and B, can freely choose between A and B.
God is omniscient (all-knowing).
God knows I will choose A.
God cannot be wrong, since an omniscient being cannot have false knowledge.
From 3 and 4, I will choose A and cannot choose B.
From 1 and 5, omniscience and free will cannot co-exist.

Premises 1 and 2 in the outline above are the main premises to the argument and are not disputed. The Christian worldview argues that every human being is a free moral agent and is capable of making choices simply by exercising their will, not under compulsion or because of instinct. Also, it is a long held doctrine of Christianity that God is all-knowing. The Bible says that God knows "the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10)." For omniscience to be truly knowledgeable it must be correct knowledge, so premise number 4 is also granted.

How did the writers of Isaiah come to the conclusion that God knows "the end from the beginning"? Did they have scientific proof of this? Or was it merely wishful thinking on their part?

However, point number 5 is where the logic falters. Those who argue in this manner make the mistake of thinking that because God possesses knowledge about a specific matter, then he has influenced it. That does not follow at all. Just because God can foresee which choice you will make, it does not mean you couldn't still freely choose the other option.

Just to be sure we're on the same page:
x = The A/B value God knows Pete will choose
y = The A/B choice Pete chooses

Which has a value assigned to it first - x or y?
Is it x
Is it y
Or do they have a value assigned to them at the same moment?

Let me give you an example. I have a five year old son. If I were to leave a chocolate chip cookie on the table about a hour before dinner time and my son was to walk by and see it, I know that he would pick up the cookie and eat it. I did not force him to make that decision. In fact, I don't even have to be in the room at all. I think I know my son well enough, though, to tell you that if I come back into the kitchen the cookie will be gone. His act was made completely free of my influence, but I knew what his actions would be.

That's not infallible foreknowledge, nor is it omniscience. Your son could still make a free decision that could be in conflict with what you have reason to believe he will choose.

In examining the argument, the assumption is made in premise 3 that because God knows I will choose A somehow denies me the choice of B. That is the premise that Christianity rejects. Omniscience and free will are not incompatible and it is a non-sequitor to claim otherwise."

x = God's knowledge of what Pete's A/B choice will be
y = Pete's A/B choice
One must be a product of the other
Is x a product of y?
Is y a product of x?

 

[Hakan101]

How did the writers of Isaiah come to the conclusion that God knows "the end from the beginning"? Did they have scientific proof of this? Or was it merely wishful thinking on their part?

The quote is taken from a long message delivered by Isaiah. If you go back to its beginning, you will see that Isaiah begins speaking with "This is what the LORD says..." God himself has spoken this to Isaiah, who then delivers it to the people.

Just to be sure we're on the same page:
x = The A/B value God knows Pete will choose
y = The A/B choice Pete chooses

Which has a value assigned to it first - x or y?
Is it x
Is it y
Or do they have a value assigned to them at the same moment?

x is assigned first by God, then y by Pete. y is not assigned by God in any way.

That's not infallible foreknowledge, nor is it omniscience. Your son could still make a free decision that could be in conflict with what you have reason to believe he will choose.

He could have made a conflicting choice, but he didn't. He acted exactly as I said he would. This is not me forcing his choice at all. Remember, he has no idea I am aware of what he is going to choose. We don't know what choices we are going to make, but God does. Just because we don't have the foreknowledge doesn't mean we are denied the free choice. For example, I just stood up and stretched right now. I didn't know I was going to choose that one minute ago, but God always knew. I could've chosen to do it at another time, but I chose to do it right now. That didn't deny me the choice of doing it five minutes later at all. I can set a timer for five minutes and decide that when time's up, I'm standing up again. I know I'm going to do that, and God knows it too.

x = God's knowledge of what Pete's A/B choice will be
y = Pete's A/B choice
One must be a product of the other
Is x a product of y?
Is y a product of x?

I don't think either one has to be a product of the other. Pete's about to make his free will choice, God is watching him knowing what Pete will choose. We find that it is correct. Pete wasn't denied the opposite choice at all, God just knows Pete and knew Pete would want to choose his letter. He absolutely could have chosen the opposite letter. That's just not what happened.

 

[Cieza]

The quote is taken from a long message delivered by Isaiah. If you go back to its beginning, you will see that Isaiah begins speaking with "This is what the LORD says..." God himself has spoken this to Isaiah, who then delivers it to the people.

What evidence is there that Isaiah was spoken to by God? What evidence is there that Isaiah didn't merely make up this passage himself without getting it from God?

x is assigned first by God, then y by Pete. y is not assigned by God in any way.

OK, now we're moving along. So x is established as either A or B prior to Pete making his free choice of A or B. Since Pete can make a free choice of A or B, then what happens if x is first equal to A and Pete then chooses B. You have yet to reconcile that.

Furthermore, how does God get knowledge of Pete's A/B choice? If it is through observation, then y comes before x - not the other way around.

He could have made a conflicting choice, but he didn't. He acted exactly as I said he would. This is not me forcing his choice at all. Remember, he has no idea I am aware of what he is going to choose.

What if your son had made a choice that conflicted with what you had reason to believe he would choose?

We don't know what choices we are going to make, but God does.

How does God get the knowledge of what choices we are going to make?

Just because we don't have the foreknowledge doesn't mean we are denied the free choice. For example, I just stood up and stretched right now. I didn't know I was going to choose that one minute ago, but God always knew.

What if God told you prior to you getting up to stretch that you would do that at a specific time and when that time arrived, you did not get up to stretch. What would that do to God's omniscience?

I could've chosen to do it at another time, but I chose to do it right now. That didn't deny me the choice of doing it five minutes later at all. I can set a timer for five minutes and decide that when time's up, I'm standing up again. I know I'm going to do that, and God knows it too.

You don't know for sure. You could change your mind.

I don't think either one has to be a product of the other. Pete's about to make his free will choice, God is watching him knowing what Pete will choose. We find that it is correct. Pete wasn't denied the opposite choice at all, God just knows Pete and knew Pete would want to choose his letter. He absolutely could have chosen the opposite letter. That's just not what happened.

If x is always equal to y, then one must be a product of the other.

If God tells Pete that Pete will freely choose B and Pete instead freely chooses A, then what happens to God's infallible foreknowledge that Pete would freely choose B? You still haven't reconciled that.

 

[Hakan101]

What evidence is there that Isaiah was spoken to by God? What evidence is there that Isaiah didn't merely make up this passage himself without getting it from God?

Isaiah prophesied by God that Israel would be restored and it was. Not sure what you're trying to get at with this question.

OK, now we're moving along. So x is established as either A or B prior to Pete making his free choice of A or B. Since Pete can make a free choice of A or B, then what happens if x is first equal to A and Pete then chooses B. You have yet to reconcile that.

It is possible that x equals A and Peter could choose B. It could happen, but it won't. There's no need to reconcile it unless it happens.

Furthermore, how does God get knowledge of Pete's A/B choice? If it is through observation, then y comes before x - not the other way around.

If God has no limits, I suppose there are any number of ways he could obtain knowledge. I don't think I know how he got it, just that he has it. I do think I know how he didn't get it though.

What if your son had made a choice that conflicted with what you had reason to believe he would choose?

If he had, then things would be different.

How does God get the knowledge of what choices we are going to make?

Addressed above.

What if God told you prior to you getting up to stretch that you would do that at a specific time and when that time arrived, you did not get up to stretch. What would that do to God's omniscience?

I didn't hear him say anything before I stretched, but if I did I would have done it anyways. God in his omniscience knows I would obey.

You don't know for sure. You could change your mind.

That's true. God would know, however, if I was ultimately going to go through with it or not. I don't.

If x is always equal to y, then one must be a product of the other.

If God tells Pete that Pete will freely choose B and Pete instead freely chooses A, then what happens to God's infallible foreknowledge that Pete would freely choose B? You still haven't reconciled that.

I have answered this already. It's possible that Pete could freely choose A when God said he would choose B. But it's not what would happen. You're proposing a hypothetical situation where God would be wrong, when in reality he would not be. If God told Pete he would choose B, then Pete would freely obey and choose B. God wouldn't have told Pete if he knew Pete wouldn't obey. Pete obeys freely, nobody is denying him of disobedience.

 

[Cieza]

Isaiah prophesied by God that Israel would be restored and it was. Not sure what you're trying to get at with this question.



It is possible that x equals A and Peter could choose B. It could happen, but it won't. There's no need to reconcile it unless it happens.



If God has no limits, I suppose there are any number of ways he could obtain knowledge. I don't think I know how he got it, just that he has it. I do think I know how he didn't get it though.



If he had, then things would be different.



Addressed above.



I didn't hear him say anything before I stretched, but if I did I would have done it anyways. God in his omniscience knows I would obey.



That's true. God would know, however, if I was ultimately going to go through with it or not. I don't.



I have answered this already. It's possible that Pete could freely choose A when God said he would choose B. But it's not what would happen. You're proposing a hypothetical situation where God would be wrong, when in reality he would not be. If God told Pete he would choose B, then Pete would freely obey and choose B. God wouldn't have told Pete if he knew Pete wouldn't obey. Pete obeys freely, nobody is denying him of disobedience.

You keep evading the question. I asked very clearly. You said x comes before y. y is determined by a free will agent - meaning y can be equal to A or B at Pete's discretion regardless of what x is equal to. Now if y came first and x were a product of y, then you would have a valid point. But you said that x comes first.

Once again, what happens if God knows Pete will choose A and Pete then chooses B?

 

[Hakan101]

You keep evading the question. I asked very clearly. You said x comes before y. y is determined by a free will agent - meaning y can be equal to A or B at Pete's discretion regardless of what x is equal to. Now if y came first and x were a product of y, then you would have a valid point. But you said that x comes first.

Once again, what happens if God knows Pete will choose A and Pete then chooses B?

How am I evading? I've said many times already that this situation would not happen. You're basing this on the notion that God would be wrong. You're proposing a scenario where God knows Pete will choose A, but not following through with that presupposition, because somehow God doesn't know, since Pete chooses B. Doesn't make any sense.

Why do you keep assuming God will be wrong?

 

[Cieza]

How am I evading? I've said many times already that this situation would not happen. You're basing this on the notion that God would be wrong. You're proposing a scenario where God knows Pete will choose A, but not following through with that presupposition, because somehow God doesn't know, since Pete chooses B. Doesn't make any sense.

Why do you keep assuming God will be wrong?

If God can do anything, then the situation could happen. God could tell Pete on day 1 what A/B choice Pete will make on day 3. Let's assume that knowledge says Pete is going to choose A. Unless Pete's new knowledge would prevent him from freely making a decision, then Pete could still choose B. If that occurred, we would have a conflict.

As a result, either:
1) God loses his omniscience
2) Pete loses his ability to freely choose A or B

Which is it?

 

[chilehed]

This is my problem with this logic: God created us. It's not the same as us watching a total stranger do things outside of our control. If God designed us, then we can only act as God designed us to act. If we were created with an aggressive nature, then we will act aggressively. If we were created with a shy nature, then we will avoid conflict.

And since we were created with free will, we act with freedom of will.

To God, we're like wind-up toy cars. We can't do anything to surprise God.

The mere fact that we can't surprise him doesn't imply that we have no free will.

 

[elman]

If God can do anything, then the situation could happen. God could tell Pete on day 1 what A/B choice Pete will make on day 3. Let's assume that knowledge says Pete is going to choose A. Unless Pete's new knowledge would prevent him from freely making a decision, then Pete could still choose B. If that occurred, we would have a conflict.

As a result, either:
1) God loses his omniscience
2) Pete loses his ability to freely choose A or B

Which is it?

God would never make the wrong choice. When you assume that you mess up the entire analogy.

 

[Hakan101]

If God can do anything, then the situation could happen. God could tell Pete on day 1 what A/B choice Pete will make on day 3. Let's assume that knowledge says Pete is going to choose A. Unless Pete's new knowledge would prevent him from freely making a decision, then Pete could still choose B. If that occurred, we would have a conflict.

As a result, either:
1) God loses his omniscience
2) Pete loses his ability to freely choose A or B

Which is it?

There is something I think you might not be understanding. Or you could be ignoring it. It is that God can do anything, but will not do just anything. The situation you propose could happen, but it will not happen. In your situation, Pete can still choose B. It is possible, but it is not what will happen. Elman's point stands, you are continuously assuming God would be wrong.

 

[Cieza]

And since we were created with free will, we act with freedom of will.


The mere fact that we can't surprise him doesn't imply that we have no free will.

What happens if God tells Pete what his A/B choice will be and then Pete chooses the one which God said he wouldn't choose?