How can omniscience & omnipotence be compatible with free will?

[Cieza]

What do you mean by "set as a part of history?" Do you mean in the past, as in before the future where Pete makes his choice?

I still don't understand, you haven't fully answered it. God knows Pete's choice before he makes it, Pete has free will, therefore Pete will freely choose that which God knew he would. How could it be any other way?

If it were asked on day 1, "Does God know what A/B choice Pete will make on day 3?" and the answer were yes, then whatever he knows at that point in Pete's timeline cannot change.

 

[Hakan101]

If it were asked on day 1, "Does God know what A/B choice Pete will make on day 3?" and the answer were yes, then whatever he knows at that point in Pete's timeline cannot change.

Cannot change? More like "will not change" if you ask me. It's not like God's forcing Pete so he cannot make a contradictory choice, he just knows what letter Pete will end up choosing. Pete's got no idea, he's just making his choice with his free will and God happens to know what it will be before it has happened.

 

[Cieza]

Cannot change? More like "will not change" if you ask me. It's not like God's forcing Pete so he cannot make a contradictory choice, he just knows what letter Pete will end up choosing. Pete's got no idea, he's just making his choice with his free will and God happens to know what it will be before it has happened.

"cannot change" or "will not change" - either one is fine. Since you're going with "will not change", let's play it out.

Day 1: God knows Pete will choose x (either A or B) on Pete's day 3
x is equal to A or x is equal to B, but "will not change" after day 1.
Day 3: Pete prepares to make an A or B decision. We'll call Pete's decision y. He can freely choose A or he could freely choose B.

Let's look at four possible scenarios:

1) x=A; y=A
2) x=A; y=B
3) x=B; y=A
4) x=B; y=B

As you can see, God will know Pete's choice only about 50% of the time. If Pete knows what God knew on day 1, then Pete could bias his choice to either match or not match God's day 1 knowledge. If this still doesn't make sense to you, I'll portray a scenario in which God shares his day 1 knowledge with Pete prior to Pete making his choice.

 

[Hakan101]

You haven't fully explained why God would ever be wrong about Pete's choice though. Why would x ever be unequal to y?

It is interesting that you mention Pete being possibly biased towards God's knowledge. Would it not be free will if Pete knew and decided to comply with God? Also, is it not conceivable that God knew Pete would never be biased against God if he knew God's knowledge?

 

[LostMarbels]

"cannot change" or "will not change" - either one is fine. Since you're going with "will not change", let's play it out.

Day 1: God knows Pete will choose x (either A or B) on Pete's day 3
x is equal to A or x is equal to B, but "will not change" after day 1.
Day 3: Pete prepares to make an A or B decision. We'll call Pete's decision y. He can freely choose A or he could freely choose B.

Let's look at four possible scenarios:

1) x=A; y=A
2) x=A; y=B
3) x=B; y=A
4) x=B; y=B

As you can see, God will know Pete's choice only about 50% of the time. If Pete knows what God knew on day 1, then Pete could bias his choice to either match or not match God's day 1 knowledge. If this still doesn't make sense to you, I'll portray a scenario in which God shares his day 1 knowledge with Pete prior to Pete making his choice.

Said it before Ill say it again: One would have to argue that within the constraints provided, by your logic, this is a possible outcome. However, is the OP about how the christian God is understood by christians in his ability to be both omnipotent and omnipresent within the realm of free will. Or is this about what constraints you can oppose upon us to prove God failable.

 

[LostMarbels]

Also you didnot bother to answer one question, just dissmisded them for your own.
Read my post http://www.christianforums.com/t7577048-15/#post58096269 and the one above it. Agrue those points. Prove me incorect in my logic instaed of keep going on & on & on & on & on & on with same A,B, stuff. Reality in of itself is subjective. How can you constraint this entire conversation to only 1 possible outcome. Yours. If you just absolutly have no point and must be right. Fine I bow to your superiority.

 

[Cieza]

You haven't fully explained why God would ever be wrong about Pete's choice though. Why would x ever be unequal to y?

because x is established and will not change at a point in time prior to y being established.

It is interesting that you mention Pete being possibly biased towards God's knowledge. Would it not be free will if Pete knew and decided to comply with God? Also, is it not conceivable that God knew Pete would never be biased against God if he knew God's knowledge?

If Pete knew what x was (either A or B) prior to his choosing y (A or B), he could still choose for y to either be the same or not the same as x.

 

[Cieza]

Said it before Ill say it again: One would have to argue that within the constraints provided, by your logic, this is a possible outcome. However, is the OP about how the christian God is understood by christians in his ability to be both omnipotent and omnipresent within the realm of free will. Or is this about what constraints you can oppose upon us to prove God failable.

I'm merely going by what Christians have told me - that God knows everything and can do anything.

 

[elman]

"cannot change" or "will not change" - either one is fine. Since you're going with "will not change", let's play it out.

Day 1: God knows Pete will choose x (either A or B) on Pete's day 3
x is equal to A or x is equal to B, but "will not change" after day 1.
Day 3: Pete prepares to make an A or B decision. We'll call Pete's decision y. He can freely choose A or he could freely choose B.

Let's look at four possible scenarios:

1) x=A; y=A
2) x=A; y=B
3) x=B; y=A
4) x=B; y=B

As you can see, God will know Pete's choice only about 50% of the time. If Pete knows what God knew on day 1, then Pete could bias his choice to either match or not match God's day 1 knowledge. If this still doesn't make sense to you, I'll portray a scenario in which God shares his day 1 knowledge with Pete prior to Pete making his choice.

On day one God does not know Pete's choice is something other than what Pete will chose. Your problem is built on a false premise.

 

[Hakan101]

because x is established and will not change at a point in time prior to y being established.


If Pete knew what x was (either A or B) prior to his choosing y (A or B), he could still choose for y to either be the same or not the same as x.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you're implying that y will not be equal to x even though it hasn't happened yet. Sort of the opposite of what I'm saying, that y will be equal to x, even though it hasn't happened yet. But this seems to be ignoring God's omniscience. If God knows y will be equal to x before y occurs, then because he is omniscient we know that y will be equal to x, even though it hasn't occurred yet.

If God shared with Pete what x was before y occurred, then even though he still has the free choice, he will freely choose y so it is equal to x. Why he does this would be either bias towards God or the fact that Pete would want to choose a y equal to x anyways, and God knew this already.

 

[Cieza]

On day one God does not know Pete's choice is something other than what Pete will chose. Your problem is built on a false premise.

I see we're moving along. Since on day 1, Pete hasn't yet made his choice, then all God would know is that Pete hasn't yet made his choice. If on day 1, God knew Pete's choice is what he's going to choose, but couldn't be narrowed down to either A or B, then it seems to me that God doesn't really know what Pete's A/B choice will be.

Now let's say every day, God delivers an envelope to Pete. Inside this envelope is a sheet of paper stating what Pete will choose to eat for breakfast the following day. Pete is instructed by God to not open the envelope until after he chooses his breakfast cereal on the day in question. Every day after Pete eats his breakfast, he opens God's envelope and sees that God correctly wrote what Pete would choose. Then after this goes on for about two months - with God always correctly identifying Pete's breakfast choice - Pete opens the envelope before he makes his breakfast choice. He sees that God wrote "Cheerios". Pete then chooses to eat Wheaties instead. What does this do to God's foreknowledge that Pete would choose Cheerios?

 

[elman]

I see we're moving along. Since on day 1, Pete hasn't yet made his choice, then all God would know is that Pete hasn't yet made his choice. If on day 1, God knew Pete's choice is what he's going to choose, but couldn't be narrowed down to either A or B, then it seems to me that God doesn't really know what Pete's A/B choice will be.

Now let's say every day, God delivers an envelope to Pete. Inside this envelope is a sheet of paper stating what Pete will choose to eat for breakfast the following day. Pete is instructed by God to not open the envelope until after he chooses his breakfast cereal on the day in question. Every day after Pete eats his breakfast, he opens God's envelope and sees that God correctly wrote what Pete would choose. Then after this goes on for about two months - with God always correctly identifying Pete's breakfast choice - Pete opens the envelope before he makes his breakfast choice. He sees that God wrote "Cheerios". Pete then chooses to eat Wheaties instead. What does this do to God's foreknowledge that Pete would choose Cheerios?

You assume God does not know what Pete will chose. Why do you assume that?

 

[Hakan101]

I see we're moving along. Since on day 1, Pete hasn't yet made his choice, then all God would know is that Pete hasn't yet made his choice. If on day 1, God knew Pete's choice is what he's going to choose, but couldn't be narrowed down to either A or B, then it seems to me that God doesn't really know what Pete's A/B choice will be.

Now let's say every day, God delivers an envelope to Pete. Inside this envelope is a sheet of paper stating what Pete will choose to eat for breakfast the following day. Pete is instructed by God to not open the envelope until after he chooses his breakfast cereal on the day in question. Every day after Pete eats his breakfast, he opens God's envelope and sees that God correctly wrote what Pete would choose. Then after this goes on for about two months - with God always correctly identifying Pete's breakfast choice - Pete opens the envelope before he makes his breakfast choice. He sees that God wrote "Cheerios". Pete then chooses to eat Wheaties instead. What does this do to God's foreknowledge that Pete would choose Cheerios?

Similar to what I said in my previous post, you assume Pete would choose Wheaties. But this ignores God's omniscience. If we know God is omniscient, than we know he would not have made an incorrect prophecy. Pete would know that God wrote Cheerios, and then by his own free will he will choose to eat Cheerios. This could involve a bias towards God or not, but God knew that Pete would want to choose Cheerios.

 

[Cieza]

Similar to what I said in my previous post, you assume Pete would choose Wheaties. But this ignores God's omniscience. If we know God is omniscient, than we know he would not have made an incorrect prophecy. Pete would know that God wrote Cheerios, and then by his own free will he will choose to eat Cheerios. This could involve a bias towards God or not, but God knew that Pete would want to choose Cheerios.

I only assume Pete has a free choice between Wheaties and Cheerios.

If God cannot make an incorrect prophecy, then either:
A) He is incapable of making a prophecy relating to a future freely made decision by a free will agent
B) What appear to be unimpeded freely made decisions weren't really unimpeded & freely made. In other words, anything that appears to be a free will agent is really an automaton.

 

[Cieza]

You assume God does not know what Pete will chose. Why do you assume that?

Because one of the presuppositions is that Pete is a free will agent and can freely choose Cheerios or Wheaties - regardless of what anyone else thinks he will choose.

 

[Hakan101]

I only assume Pete has a free choice between Wheaties and Cheerios.

If God cannot make an incorrect prophecy, then either:
A) He is incapable of making a prophecy relating to a future freely made decision by a free will agent
B) What appear to be unimpeded freely made decisions weren't really unimpeded & freely made. In other words, anything that appears to be a free will agent is really an automaton.

Ah, I see. You are right. I shall correct myself: God will not make an incorrect prophecy. Now it stands.

 

[Cieza]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you're implying that y will not be equal to x even though it hasn't happened yet. Sort of the opposite of what I'm saying, that y will be equal to x, even though it hasn't happened yet. But this seems to be ignoring God's omniscience. If God knows y will be equal to x before y occurs, then because he is omniscient we know that y will be equal to x, even though it hasn't occurred yet.

Your assumptions are incorrect. When x (God's knowledge of y) occurs, y (Pete's freely made A/B choice) hasn't yet been established. If x is established prior to y being established, and y is made freely, then x cannot change as a result of what y is. So if x is A and Pete chooses B, then x does not equal y and God's foreknowledge has been compromised.

If God shared with Pete what x was before y occurred, then even though he still has the free choice, he will freely choose y so it is equal to x. Why he does this would be either bias towards God or the fact that Pete would want to choose a y equal to x anyways, and God knew this already.

Not true. If Pete is forced to choose y so it is equal to x, then his choice hasn't been freely made. In order for Pete's choice to be freely made, he will be able to choose y so that it may be equal to x or so that it won't be equal to x.

Remember, if x is established before y, then x cannot change. You cannot have x precede y and simultaneously y precede x.

 

[Cieza]

Ah, I see. You are right. I shall correct myself: God will not make an incorrect prophecy. Now it stands.

If God can do anything, then he can make an incorrect prophecy.

 

[Hakan101]

Your assumptions are incorrect. When x (God's knowledge of y) occurs, y (Pete's freely made A/B choice) hasn't yet been established. If x is established prior to y being established, and y is made freely, then x cannot change as a result of what y is. So if x is A and Pete chooses B, then x does not equal y and God's foreknowledge has been compromised.

Not true. If Pete is forced to choose y so it is equal to x, then his choice hasn't been freely made. In order for Pete's choice to be freely made, he will be able to choose y so that it may be equal to x or so that it won't be equal to x.

Remember, if x is established before y, then x cannot change. You cannot have x precede y and simultaneously y precede x.

I think you are missing my point. Even if x was established before y, Pete will not make a choice that conflicts with God. If he did, God would not have made the prophecy that Pete would choose a y equal to x. You still seem to be ignoring God's omniscience.

Pete has not been forced to choose a y equal to x, I said he would either be biased towards God (as in freely choosing to align himself with God), or Pete wanted to choose y equal to x, for reasons besides the fact that God told him. Like I said in my corrected statement, God will not make an incorrect prophecy. He would not say Pete would choose A if he knows Pete is going to choose B.

Remember what LostMarbles said. God can do anything, but there are things he refuses to do. God can make an incorrect prophecy, but he will not make an incorrect prophecy.

 

[Cieza]

I think you are missing my point. Even if x was established before y, Pete will not make a choice that conflicts with God. If he did, God would not have made the prophecy that Pete would choose a y equal to x. You still seem to be ignoring God's omniscience.

Not true. Up until the time Pete makes his choice, he can freely choose A or B. That was defined as a presupposition.

Pete has not been forced to choose a y equal to x, I said he would either be biased towards God (as in freely choosing to align himself with God), or Pete wanted to choose y equal to x, for reasons besides the fact that God told him. Like I said in my corrected statement, God will not make an incorrect prophecy. He would not say Pete would choose A if he knows Pete is going to choose B.

Then what happens if x becomes A on day 1 and y becomes B on day 3? Does x remain equal to A? Or does it change to B? If it changes to B, at what point in time does it change to B?

Remember what LostMarbles said. God can do anything, but there are things he refuses to do. God can make an incorrect prophecy, but he will not make an incorrect prophecy.

Are you saying God won't tell Pete what A/B choice he'll later make because Pete could choose the contrary choice?

As two of the presuppositions were that God can do anything and knows everything, then what exactly happens if God establishes x=A on day 1 and Pete establishes y=B on day 3?