The problem of omniscience

[Bobber]

nil

 

[bling]

That is actually correct, but man can have other kinds of free will.

Man can have limited autonomous free will choices, God knowing the future as history does not eliminate man making autonomous free will choices. God just knows the free will choices man made.

 

[Kim7229]

Not really, God can know the answer beforehand and not intervene in your decision at all, your decision is yours....

If true, then X would have a truth value prior to Y getting its truth value. If X=A (or God knows you will choose A) and you give Y the value of B (through your free will), what does that do to God's knowledge that you would choose A?

 

[Kim7229]

I already said yes.



That's incoherent. If Pete is going to choose A, then Pete is going to choose A.

When you cut-and-pasted this rather silly argument, you should have studied it more carefully.

So you're saying that if X=A, then Y can't be given the value of B. That violates the presuppositions of the OP which states that Pete can freely choose either A or B.

 

[NBB]

So you're saying that if X=A, then Y can't be given the value of B. That violates the presuppositions of the OP which states that Pete can freely choose either A or B.

Because God knew you will choose that, but actually didn't forced it on you, you made it yourself. If God would create the world afraid of all decision made by men in the future he would not have created us. He set up the parameters a lot of things would have his intervention/forced will on them, others not, that the way i see it.

 

[Radagast]

So you're saying that if X=A, then Y can't be given the value of B. That violates the presuppositions of the OP which states that Pete can freely choose either A or B.

No, it doesn't. Foreknowledge is only incompatible with libertarian free will (and not even that, some have argued, given that God is outside time).

Whoever wrote your copy pasta just didn't understand the issues. Neither, I'm afraid, do you.

 

[Kim7229]

No, it doesn't. Foreknowledge is only incompatible with libertarian free will (and not even that, some have argued, given that God is outside time).

Whoever wrote your copy pasta just didn't understand the issues. Neither, I'm afraid, do you.

Let's back pedal a little bit and take this one step at a time: Just give me a yes or a no. As of day 1, does X have a truth value (meaning it is equal to A or it is equal to B)?

 

[Kim7229]

Because God knew you will choose that, but actually didn't forced it on you, you made it yourself. If God would create the world afraid of all decision made by men in the future he would not have created us. He set up the parameters a lot of things would have his intervention/forced will on them, others not, that the way i see it.

Let's back pedal a little bit and take this one step at a time: Just give me a yes or a no. As of day 1, does X have a truth value (meaning it is equal to A or it is equal to B)?

 

[Radagast]

Let's back pedal a little bit and take this one step at a time: Just give me a yes or a no. As of day 1, does X have a truth value (meaning it is equal to A or it is equal to B)?

I have answered that several times. You are obviously being deliberately disruptive.

 

[food4thought]

2) Y (or Pete’s day 2 A/B choice) receives its value on day 2. Once Y receives its value, it becomes locked. Prior to receiving its value, it could potentially become A or B, as Pete freely chooses A or B. This follows the assertion that Pete has free will or can freely make choices.

Hi Kim. I am glad you are taking the time to come here and explore Christianity with us. I must admit I am not formally trained in logic, but it seems to me that the misunderstanding in your OP is here. You are asserting that man's freewill could not exist because God knows what we will choose. You are also assuming that God is limited by space-time. Yet since God stands outside space-time, Y's value has been locked since the foundation of the world. God knows infallibly what Pete will freely choose, even if he changes his mind multiple times. God knows the future because He sees all of history as an eternal "now". From His perspective, the choice is made, yet Pete's choice IS free in a limited sense (because we are limited beings, and also because God could always choose to intervene and cause Pete to make the choice of His choosing, but this is not God's motes-operandi, so to speak). God gave us the ability to make free choices within space-time, it is His gift to us. He deliberately allows us to make choices of our own will because He loves us. He simply fulfills His purposes around and through our choices.

In short, God's foreknowledge does not preclude man's limited free will, it simply demonstrates both His glory and His love. To say that this is impossible given the logic limits God to our level. God is able to both know what we will choose and yet still allow us the room to choose freely (within the limits of our fallen humanity, and always with the possibility of God intervening when He so chooses). Since you yourself are not outside time, and omniscient, you cannot accurately judge what God is and is not capable of doing. Scripture reveals to us that both God's foreknowledge and man's freedom to choose are true. Otherwise, we would be free to eliminate one or the other based upon our limited human logic, but this is not the case. Hope this helps you resolve your problem with Christian thought;

Michael

 

[Kim7229]

I have answered that several times. You are obviously being deliberately disruptive.

I went ahead and reviewed all your posts in this thread and don't see that you answered this question. I'll post it again here. I won't be offended if you choose to not answer.

Just give me a yes or a no. As of day 1, does X have a truth value (meaning it is equal to A or it is equal to B)?

 

[Kim7229]

Hi Kim. I am glad you are taking the time to come here and explore Christianity with us. I must admit I am not formally trained in logic, but it seems to me that the misunderstanding in your OP is here. You are asserting that man's freewill could not exist because God knows what we will choose. You are also assuming that God is limited by space-time. Yet since God stands outside space-time, Y's value has been locked since the foundation of the world. God knows infallibly what Pete will freely choose, even if he changes his mind multiple times. God knows the future because He sees all of history as an eternal "now". From His perspective, the choice is made, yet Pete's choice IS free in a limited sense (because we are limited beings, and also because God could always choose to intervene and cause Pete to make the choice of His choosing, but this is not God's motes-operandi, so to speak). God gave us the ability to make free choices within space-time, it is His gift to us. He deliberately allows us to make choices of our own will because He loves us. He simply fulfills His purposes around and through our choices.

In short, God's foreknowledge does not preclude man's limited free will, it simply demonstrates both His glory and His love. To say that this is impossible given the logic limits God to our level. God is able to both know what we will choose and yet still allow us the room to choose freely (within the limits of our fallen humanity, and always with the possibility of God intervening when He so chooses). Since you yourself are not outside time, and omniscient, you cannot accurately judge what God is and is not capable of doing. Scripture reveals to us that both God's foreknowledge and man's freedom to choose are true. Otherwise, we would be free to eliminate one or the other based upon our limited human logic, but this is not the case. Hope this helps you resolve your problem with Christian thought;

Michael

I think I get what you're trying to say, but I need to ask: Let's say God knows Pete will choose A. Pete then freely chooses B. What does that do to God's knowledge that Pete will choose A?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Proof that it is logically impossible for anyone or anything to have infallible knowledge of yet to be made free choices.

Christians often make the claim that God knows everything. If asked for specifics, they’ll say this includes knowledge about the future (foreknowledge) and that such knowledge is infallible. Christians also often make the claim that man has free will. Upon being asked for specifics, they’ll agree that free will entails the ability to freely make a choice and that up until the time an option is chosen, a different option could have been chosen. At quick glance, these claims may not appear to be in conflict. However, if we dig a little deeper into each of these claims, we’ll see that they are.

Let’s say Pete is faced with a free choice of A or B. He is due to make this choice on Tuesday (day 2). We’ll call Pete’s day 2 A/B choice variable Y - meaning if Pete chooses A, then variable Y gets a value of A and if Pete chooses B, then variable Y gets a value of B. This also means prior to day 2, variable Y has no value (or the choice lies in an unmade state), and on day 2, variable Y will acquire a value of either A or B – to be decided freely by Pete.

Given the Christian claim that God has infallible foreknowledge, this would mean God knows infallibly what A/B choice Pete will make when the choice still lies in an unmade state. To gain further clarity on this, it can be asked, “if it were asked on day 1 does God know infallibly what Pete’s day 2 A/B choice will be, would the answer be YES?”. Christians would typically agree.

So we’ll call what is true on day 1 about God’s knowledge of Pete’s day 2 A/B choice variable X. In other words, if as of day 1, God knows Pete will choose A, then variable X has a value of A - and if as of day 1, God knows Pete will choose B, then variable X has a value of B. If on day 1 it is true that God knows infallibly what Pete’s day 2 A/B choice will be, then it follows that X has a static or fixed value of either A or B as of day 1.

If asked for further specifics, such as what if Pete chooses something in conflict with what God knows he will choose, Christians will respond with the assertion that Pete will choose whatever God knows he will choose. This means that if variable X is equal to A, then variable Y must be equal to A; if variable Y is equal to B, then variable X must be equal to B, etc.

We now have three conditions:

1) X (or God's knowledge as of day 1 of Pete's day 2 A/B choice) has a value of either A or B on day 1 and this value is fixed and cannot change. If it is A, it will remain A. If it is B, it will remain B. This follows the assertion that God has infallible knowledge of future events.

2) Y (or Pete’s day 2 A/B choice) receives its value on day 2. Once Y receives its value, it becomes locked. Prior to receiving its value, it could potentially become A or B, as Pete freely chooses A or B. This follows the assertion that Pete has free will or can freely make choices.

3) X is equal to Y. This follows the assertion that whatever Pete chooses is precisely the same as what God knew he would choose.

Not all three of these conditions can be true.

If #1 & #2 are true, then #3 can’t be true, as X wouldn’t necessarily be equal to Y, nor would Y necessarily be equal to X. Not only would X receive a value at a different point in time than Y, but Y could be assigned a value in conflict with the static value of X.

If #1 & #3 are true, then #2 can’t be true. Pete wouldn’t be able to freely choose A or B, as variable Y would already be defined as being equal to variable X. Christians will often argue that God's knowledge of Pete’s future choice is a function of Pete’s day 2 choice. But this doesn’t hold true if the answer to the question “if asked on day 1, does God know what Pete’s day 2 A/B choice will be?” is YES.

If #2 & #3 are true, then #1 can’t be true. What this means is if variable Y gets its value on day 2, then variable X also gets its value on day 2 and gets the same value as variable Y. It then follows that God can’t have infallible knowledge on day 1 of Pete’s day 2 A/B choice.

Therefore, it is logically impossible for God (or anyone) to have infallible foreknowledge of a yet to be made free choice.

At a high level, what's going on is some people have made claims. These claims are equivalent to:

1) X has a value of A or B on day 1, meaning it must be equal to A or equal to B as of day 1. This is derived from the Christian claim that if asked on day 1, "does God know what Pete will choose tomorrow", they would say "yes".

2) Y gets a value of A or B on day 2, meaning Y has no value prior to day 2 and could be either A or B. This is derived from the Christian claim that Pete freely can choose either A or B and that up until the time he freely chooses either A or B, he could choose the other option.

3) X is always equal to Y and vice versa. This is derived from the Christian claim that whatever God knows Pete will choose is what Pete will choose and whatever Pete chooses is what God knew he would choose.

Since 1, 2 and 3 can't all be true, we can conclude - provided we're responding to the aforementioned claims - that the God described here can't have infallible knowledge of Pete's freely made choices.

So, let me see if I've got this right. Christians, as you've designated them, think that God exerts force upon human beings to make His knowledge of the future be what He knows it's going to be. Does this capture the gist of your logic here?

 

[food4thought]

I think I get what you're trying to say,

OK, but I'm not sure you do...

but I need to ask: Let's say God knows Pete will choose A. Pete then freely chooses B. What does that do to God's knowledge that Pete will choose A?

Never could happen. God's foreknowledge is infallible.

 

[Kaon]

Proof that it is logically impossible for anyone or anything to have infallible knowledge of yet to be made free choices.

Christians often make the claim that God knows everything. If asked for specifics, they’ll say this includes knowledge about the future (foreknowledge) and that such knowledge is infallible. Christians also often make the claim that man has free will. Upon being asked for specifics, they’ll agree that free will entails the ability to freely make a choice and that up until the time an option is chosen, a different option could have been chosen. At quick glance, these claims may not appear to be in conflict. However, if we dig a little deeper into each of these claims, we’ll see that they are.

Let’s say Pete is faced with a free choice of A or B. He is due to make this choice on Tuesday (day 2). We’ll call Pete’s day 2 A/B choice variable Y - meaning if Pete chooses A, then variable Y gets a value of A and if Pete chooses B, then variable Y gets a value of B. This also means prior to day 2, variable Y has no value (or the choice lies in an unmade state), and on day 2, variable Y will acquire a value of either A or B – to be decided freely by Pete.

Given the Christian claim that God has infallible foreknowledge, this would mean God knows infallibly what A/B choice Pete will make when the choice still lies in an unmade state. To gain further clarity on this, it can be asked, “if it were asked on day 1 does God know infallibly what Pete’s day 2 A/B choice will be, would the answer be YES?”. Christians would typically agree.

So we’ll call what is true on day 1 about God’s knowledge of Pete’s day 2 A/B choice variable X. In other words, if as of day 1, God knows Pete will choose A, then variable X has a value of A - and if as of day 1, God knows Pete will choose B, then variable X has a value of B. If on day 1 it is true that God knows infallibly what Pete’s day 2 A/B choice will be, then it follows that X has a static or fixed value of either A or B as of day 1.

If asked for further specifics, such as what if Pete chooses something in conflict with what God knows he will choose, Christians will respond with the assertion that Pete will choose whatever God knows he will choose. This means that if variable X is equal to A, then variable Y must be equal to A; if variable Y is equal to B, then variable X must be equal to B, etc.

We now have three conditions:

1) X (or God's knowledge as of day 1 of Pete's day 2 A/B choice) has a value of either A or B on day 1 and this value is fixed and cannot change. If it is A, it will remain A. If it is B, it will remain B. This follows the assertion that God has infallible knowledge of future events.

2) Y (or Pete’s day 2 A/B choice) receives its value on day 2. Once Y receives its value, it becomes locked. Prior to receiving its value, it could potentially become A or B, as Pete freely chooses A or B. This follows the assertion that Pete has free will or can freely make choices.

3) X is equal to Y. This follows the assertion that whatever Pete chooses is precisely the same as what God knew he would choose.

Not all three of these conditions can be true.

If #1 & #2 are true, then #3 can’t be true, as X wouldn’t necessarily be equal to Y, nor would Y necessarily be equal to X. Not only would X receive a value at a different point in time than Y, but Y could be assigned a value in conflict with the static value of X.

If #1 & #3 are true, then #2 can’t be true. Pete wouldn’t be able to freely choose A or B, as variable Y would already be defined as being equal to variable X. Christians will often argue that God's knowledge of Pete’s future choice is a function of Pete’s day 2 choice. But this doesn’t hold true if the answer to the question “if asked on day 1, does God know what Pete’s day 2 A/B choice will be?” is YES.

If #2 & #3 are true, then #1 can’t be true. What this means is if variable Y gets its value on day 2, then variable X also gets its value on day 2 and gets the same value as variable Y. It then follows that God can’t have infallible knowledge on day 1 of Pete’s day 2 A/B choice.

Therefore, it is logically impossible for God (or anyone) to have infallible foreknowledge of a yet to be made free choice.

At a high level, what's going on is some people have made claims. These claims are equivalent to:

1) X has a value of A or B on day 1, meaning it must be equal to A or equal to B as of day 1. This is derived from the Christian claim that if asked on day 1, "does God know what Pete will choose tomorrow", they would say "yes".

2) Y gets a value of A or B on day 2, meaning Y has no value prior to day 2 and could be either A or B. This is derived from the Christian claim that Pete freely can choose either A or B and that up until the time he freely chooses either A or B, he could choose the other option.

3) X is always equal to Y and vice versa. This is derived from the Christian claim that whatever God knows Pete will choose is what Pete will choose and whatever Pete chooses is what God knew he would choose.

Since 1, 2 and 3 can't all be true, we can conclude - provided we're responding to the aforementioned claims - that the God described here can't have infallible knowledge of Pete's freely made choices.

Unfortunately, for humans it is a logical fallacy to have freedom of choice in the sphere of omnipotence. In reality, it is completely "logical."

Essentially, human thinking is highly limited, because most all of us only see time in one dimension. If you see time and events in one dimensional flow, and responsibility and choice as a one-dimensional projection of those times and events, then of course it seems like you have no choice. Your entire flow is in one direction; it doesn't matter if you are ignorant or omnipotent.

Time is not linear; we should know this because of prophecy, and magical oracles and visions spoken about in the canonical text alone. Yet, it is hard to train the mind to think of time as non-linear.

Linear time is a luxury: to be able to see the entirety of your life one moment at a time rather than as a path of Brownian Motion. It allows us to see exactly why we will end up where we will end up - [because you are already there]. None of this takes the responsibility from the individual because the individual has/is already making the choices upon his or her own limited will (the will that matters). Your choice is your choice; you may just be aware that it isn't necessarily unique or time-dependent.

 

[food4thought]

I think I get what you're trying to say, but I need to ask: Let's say God knows Pete will choose A. Pete then freely chooses B. What does that do to God's knowledge that Pete will choose A?

Let me come at this from a different direction... consider this analogy:

God can be compared to a computer designer who has perfect foreknowledge. He decides to create a new 3D simulation. In this simulation, there are countless tiny points. Through this simulation He sends a solid line, and designs the line to change direction randomly each time it intersects one of the tiny points.

Now, because the Designer has perfect foreknowledge, He knows exactly which direction the line will move each time it hits a point. That is foreknowledge. Yet, that does not change the fact that He specifically designed the lines to change direction randomly. This is free will. Neither is compromised by your dilemma.

Hope this helps;
Michael

 

[Phil 1:21]

He knows the answer, but that does not mean he forced it on you somehow...

Exactly. This is so simple, yet people keep throwing it out there like it's some magic "gotcha." Pretty soon we'll be asked to ponder whether or not God can make a square circle.

 

[aiki]

 

[Kim7229]

So, let me see if I've got this right. Christians, as you've designated them, think that God exerts force upon human beings to make His knowledge of the future be what He knows it's going to be. Does this capture the gist of your logic here?

Nope. I'm just showing that it is logically impossible for anyone or anything to have infallible knowledge of yet to be made free choices. Nothing else. For example, let's say you had infallible knowledge that tomorrow I will choose A out of an A/B choice. I then proceed to choose B. That would nullify your knowledge. Very simple stuff.

 

[Kim7229]

OK, but I'm not sure you do...

Never could happen. God's foreknowledge is infallible.

If true, then there must be part of the OP presuppositions you don't agree with. Is it that you don't believe that Pete can freely choose A or B? Or is it something else?