God And Absolute Knowledge

[Bee Eff]

I currently subscribe to the 'weak weak argument' that God is outside of time, and fully aware of it. I don't buy the 'very very bad logic' though...

"Outside of time" is an odd concept. Wouldn't this require that all actions occur at the same time? Thus sin does not precede punishment? The only state in which God could interact with man in the manner shown in the scriptures requires that God not be "outside of time." Just curious on this one as I do not see a rationale as to how it can be a correct argument.

[JDave]

Show me a prophecy that requires human action that is also absolute in nature.

I didn't have one in mind beyond Christ being born to Mary, which you already addressed. I will try to get back to you on this.

If there is one, this is not a huge deal, God can manipulate the environment to increase the probability of one thing occuring over another. I never claimed God could not create a predisposition or tendancy towards action, or even that he could not state a certainty with an infinitesimally small probability of error. Probability allows freedom of action, absolutes do not.

So God hedges His bets when there is a possibility of a change, and tries to make those prophecies not so absolute? And if God, in order to fulfill His prophecies, creates a "predisposition or tendency" such that the was sure within "an infinitesimally small probability of error" this seems very much like cumpulsion.

If God is not really sure His prophecies will happen, even with a miniscule chance of a difference, then how can He state "heaven and earth shall pass away; yet my words shall not pass away, but all shall be fulfilled." ?

[JDave]

"Outside of time" is an odd concept. Wouldn't this require that all actions occur at the same time? Thus sin does not precede punishment? The only state in which God could interact with man in the manner shown in the scriptures requires that God not be "outside of time." Just curious on this one as I do not see a rationale as to how it can be a correct argument.

I see this as a higher dimension. Just as a three dimensional being can interact with a two dimensional world, so God can interact with us who are living in time -- in a lower dimensional existence than God.

[hagoth7]

If God cannot know what will happen in the future, how does God prophecy about the future -- sometimes very precisely?

Great question.

I also am confused with how God knowing the future implicitly leads to me not being able to choose. If God knows what I will choose because I couldn't choose otherwise, then I don't have true choice. If God knows what I will choose because God is omniscient, then my choice is known to him.

Well put. Agreed.

[hagoth7]

John 8:36 36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

Thank you. Great reference.

If I am "free indeed", I can make choices that are not in the absolute exact unchangable future.

How so?

Thus, God cannot see an absolute exact future without another possibility.

Heisenberg?

[Bee Eff]

So God hedges His bets when there is a possibility of a change, and tries to make those prophecies not so absolute? And if God, in order to fulfill His prophecies, creates a "predisposition or tendency" such that the was sure within "an infinitesimally small probability of error" this seems very much like cumpulsion.

Choosing between the proverbial hell or heaven could be viewed as compulsory as well. Freedom does not imply that the consequence of choices are equally preferred, only that a choice exists. God can do what he wishes with the consequences. I have not argued in any manner concerning compulsion, only that an absolute and exact knowledge of the future removes freedom and thus, if such is the case, makes God culpable for sin.

If God is not really sure His prophecies will happen, even with a miniscule chance of a difference, then how can He state "heaven and earth shall pass away; yet my words shall not pass away, but all shall be fulfilled." ?

I never stated that God was unsure about his prophecies.

You believe that fulfillment of prophecy requires an absolute and exact knowledge of the future? Such is not a necessity, why would it need to be?

[Chris Smith]

I currently subscribe to the 'weak weak argument' that God is outside of time, and fully aware of it. I don't buy the 'very very bad logic' though...

If being "outside of time" allows God to know the future, then that implies that the future already exists in a fixed form. If the future exists in a fixed form, then your future choices are already fixed. If your future choices are already fixed, then you cannot choose otherwise than the choices that are already determined. If you cannot choose otherwise than the choices that are already determined, you do not have libertarian free-will. Compatibilistic free-will, yes. But libertarian free-will-- the type that Bee Eff is defending in this thread-- no.

See here for Log's argument that divine foreknowledge of your actions implies you are not libertarianly (no, that's not a real word) free.

[Bee Eff]

How so?

An absolute and exact future requires that I am constrained to a specific set of actions, if I am "free indeed" then how can I be constrained to such?

Heisenberg?

Sorry, not sure what you meant with this, unless you are referencing the act of observing impacting the behavior of the subject concept.

[Jason]

Why couldn't he state that Christ would be born to a woman named Mary? It isn't that difficult a thing to wait until such a time when she would occur.

Except that God also predicted when Jesus will be born to her - six hundred years from the time Lehi left Jerusalem.

He also provided Nephi with a vision of what she would look like. Again, six hundred years before she was born.

Also, perhaps God inspired Mary's parents to name her such.

Possible, but not present in the scriptures.

[hagoth7]

An absolute and exact future requires that I am constrained to a specific set of actions....

Not if you actually created that future.

Sorry, not sure what you meant with this, unless you are referencing the act of observing impacting the behavior of the subject concept.

I meant this. Was simply wondering whether you were applying some type of Heisenberg uncertainty principle (quantum physics) as a basis for your suggestions that God's knowledge of the future is somehow limited. By your reply, I'm guessing that's not the case. (Just trying to get a good glance at the basis for your main premise.)

[Bee Eff]

Except that God also predicted when Jesus will be born to her - six hundred years from the time Lehi left Jerusalem.

He also provided Nephi with a vision of what she would look like. Again, six hundred years before she was born.

Possible, but not present in the scriptures.

I'm sure genetics is not that difficult for God. There is also a possibility that we look like our spirits did. Also, I fail to see how timing would require an absolute and exact future.

Are all of God's inspiration given to man present in the scriptures? I believe all good comes from some degree of inspiration from God.

[Bee Eff]

Not if you actually created that future.

This still threatens freedom in the same manner.

I meant this. Was simply wondering whether you were applying some type of Heisenberg uncertainty principle (quantum physics) as a basis for your suggestions that God's knowledge of the future is somehow limited. By your reply, I'm guessing that's not the case. (Just trying to get a good glance at the basis for your main premise.)

I believe that God's knowledge of an absolute and exact future is limited because the future does not yet exist.

[Jason]

I'm sure genetics is not that difficult for God. There is also a possibility that we look like our spirits did. Also, I fail to see how timing would require an absolute and exact future.

Genetics has little to do with God predicting that Mary would become Jesus' mother in 600 years.

That foreknowledge has quite a bit to do with God knowing what choices people would make - that Mary's parents would name her Mary, and that Mary would have lived a life that allowed her to be Jesus' mother, and all the choices that led up to Mary being born at that time and place.

Were these mere predictions, in which case God could have gotten one or more of the details wrong, or do they represent foreknowledge of an effectively fixed future? That's the issue at debate.

[johndoe]

Genetics has little to do with God predicting that Mary would become Jesus' mother in 600 years.

That foreknowledge has quite a bit to do with God knowing what choices people would make - that Mary's parents would name her Mary, and that Mary would have lived a life that allowed her to be Jesus' mother, and all the choices that led up to Mary being born at that time and place.

Were these mere predictions, in which case God could have gotten one or more of the details wrong, or do they represent foreknowledge of an effectively fixed future? That's the issue at debate.

Jason, it's interesting that on the other thread you took the libertarian position, but on this thread you take a strong position of God's omniscience - which is logically incompatible with libertarianism. This is why Blake Ostler and others (including Bee Eff apparently) accept God's omniscience to be limited to not include future results of free decisions. Anyway, I do side with you on this one - I also view God's omniscience as absolute, though in doing so I have to recognize that I have no idea how. In this sense, I accept the element of magic/mystery on this issue that I do not on the issue of free will/indeterminism. So much for consistency...

Bee Eff, your response to Jason's point about Nephi's vision of Mary doesn't really respond to the strongest intent of the point he is making. Do you believe that Nephi actually saw Mary performing actions exactly as they would happen 600 years in the future, or that God showed Nephi some approximation or representation only? This question can be generally asked of visions of the future as revealed in scripture.

By the way, I would strongly suggest you read through as least the last half of the other thread (God as ultimate author of evil). It is very relevant to what you are presenting now.

[JDave]

Choosing between the proverbial hell or heaven could be viewed as compulsory as well. Freedom does not imply that the consequence of choices are equally preferred, only that a choice exists.

I agree that with moral decisions the consequences affect the outcome, yet this is not compulsion on God's part -- merely informing us so that we are fully culpable for our decision.

I will continue with the prophecy of the virgin Mary. The choice between naming her child Mary or Martha or Esther does not have a moral consequence. What is the downside of the mother of Christ not being named Mary other than the lack of fulfillment of prophecy?

There a few possibilities I can think of for having the mother of God named Mary

1. God knew about Mary in advance -- He knows the future
   
2. God told Mary's parents to name her Mary -- given something like an angelic visit (unmentioned in the scriptures) they would be very likely to follow the command
   
3. God inspired several mothers that they name their daughters Mary, and then chose one of the obedient ones.
   
4. ? ? ?
   

I never stated that God was unsure about his prophecies.

In which scenario would God be sure about Mary?

You believe that fulfillment of prophecy requires an absolute and exact knowledge of the future? Such is not a necessity, why would it need to be?

I don't think it is required, but the alternate image I have is a God constantly watching to make sure that the probabilities play out correctly and moving in to correct whenever anything goes wrong. That might be the case; it certainly rules out boredom on God's part.

[LDSMusic483]

This still threatens freedom in the same manner.

I believe that God's knowledge of an absolute and exact future is limited because the future does not yet exist.

How about Peter. That was an act that was required of Peter to fulfill, and it had a time limit, and it was against everything Peter thought would happen. Was he forced to deny Christ? Was this Christs doing? If not, how then did He know that Peter would deny Him thrice before the bird (because the sight won't allow the type of bird) crowed? This was an exact prophecy.

And you were talking about timing on the Mary issue, but could God have just waited? There were prophecies of Christs coming specific to the year from 600 years before the birth! So what if Mary's parents felt inspired with her name...what if she sinned gravely and wasn't then a good fit to be Christs mother? Did God have a lot of Mary's sitting in the wings who could also be virgin mothers to Christ?

How about the prophecy of the Prophets in the book of Revelations? Seems pretty specific in what will happen there.

How about Judas? Christ prophecied that one of His apostles would betray Him. Did He force Judas to do it?

There is a reason that God always gives a good outcome bad outcome scenario. He does it so that there is full disclosure. He's not just going to go to someone and say, when you don't do this, you will then be punished in this manner. Him telling of possibilities does not mean He doesn't know which possibility will be chosen. Once again, His foreknowledge in no way means He compels choices.

[LDSMusic483]

This still threatens freedom in the same manner.

I believe that God's knowledge of an absolute and exact future is limited because the future does not yet exist.

What is time to God? Just because the future does not exist for you does not mean that it doesn't exists in Gods understanding of time. You are limiting God to your imperfect ability to view things as God does.

[Chris Smith]

I believe it was Ezekiel who predicted the destruction of Tyre. Yet Tyre was never destroyed. Some open theists (like John Sanders) point to passages like this (and the destruction of Nineveh in Jonah that also did not occur) as evidence that prophecies are often probabilistic and contingent on human obedience or disobedience. By contrast, they suggest that the final consummation is something God will bring about by his continual improv work in human history. I think an open theist would argue that the reason for the highly metaphorical language of Revelation is that the details are not set in stone, though God knows the rough sequence of events that he designs to bring about.

[Jason]

Jason, it's interesting that on the other thread you took the libertarian position, but on this thread you take a strong position of God's omniscience - which is logically incompatible with libertarianism. This is why Blake Ostler and others (including Bee Eff apparently) accept God's omniscience to be limited to not include future results of free decisions. Anyway, I do side with you on this one - I also view God's omniscience as absolute, though in doing so I have to recognize that I have no idea how. In this sense, I accept the element of magic/mystery on this issue that I do not on the issue of free will/indeterminism. So much for consistency...

As I said earlier, I'm well aware the that two positions appear to be logically incompatible.

I don't see any way that moral responsibility can attach to actions without the real capacity to chose between available options, so I agree with libertarian fee will there; but I find it difficult to accept that God cannot accurately determine the outcome of human agency, since He seems to have done so many times in scripture - which argues for a deterministic universe.

So I'm stuck until I see a better alternative, and compatabilism doesn't look like it fills the bill to me.

[JDave]

If being "outside of time" allows God to know the future, then that implies that the future already exists in a fixed form. If the future exists in a fixed form, then your future choices are already fixed. If your future choices are already fixed, then you cannot choose otherwise than the choices that are already determined. If you cannot choose otherwise than the choices that are already determined, you do not have libertarian free-will. Compatibilistic free-will, yes. But libertarian free-will-- the type that Bee Eff is defending in this thread-- no.

See here for Log's argument that divine foreknowledge of your actions implies you are not libertarianly (no, that's not a real word) free.

It is exactly through God being "outside of time" or "above time" that I find God to not be culpable. If God created the universe and it unrolled itself precisely according to the initial conditions, which God decided, then God would be culpable.

Regarding the existence of the future in a fixed form, it is only fixed because of the choices that I make. I can't make more than one choice, so I cannot retroactively change my choice at a certain time, t₁. But the choice is only fixed because I did make a choice. I cannot choose otherwise because there are no true second chances. There are other chances.

I don't agree with the first premise of Log's argument.

[Chris Smith]

Regarding the existence of the future in a fixed form, it is only fixed because of the choices that I make. I can't make more than one choice, so I cannot retroactively change my choice at a certain time, t₁. But the choice is only fixed because I did make a choice. I cannot choose otherwise because there are no true second chances. There are other chances.

I don't agree with the first premise of Log's argument.

I don't know what to tell you except that you are contradicting yourself. If your future choices are fixed because you "did make a choice", then Log's first premise-- that it has always been true that you will act a particular way at a given future moment-- is true. There's just no way around it.

[JDave]

I don't know what to tell you except that you are contradicting yourself. If your future choices are fixed because you "did make a choice", then Log's first premise-- that it has always been true that you will act a particular way at a given future moment-- is true. There's just no way around it.

Yeah, I reread Log's argument after I posted and wondered the same thing. I wasn't as sure anymore whether it was #1 I disagreed with (does always true mean it was true because of prior events, thus always...?) or #6 which assumes a change in choice. If the choice isn't made until tomorrow, we certainly aren't looking at changing it today.

His argument is pertinent to this thread. I will give a more complete response to it in a while.

[LDSMusic483]

I believe it was Ezekiel who predicted the destruction of Tyre. Yet Tyre was never destroyed. Some open theists (like John Sanders) point to passages like this (and the destruction of Nineveh in Jonah that also did not occur) as evidence that prophecies are often probabilistic and contingent on human obedience or disobedience. By contrast, they suggest that the final consummation is something God will bring about by his continual improv work in human history. I think an open theist would argue that the reason for the highly metaphorical language of Revelation is that the details are not set in stone, though God knows the rough sequence of events that he designs to bring about.

Or God lets His children know what would happen if they disobeyed or obeyed. Once again, just because God tells people what different outcomes MIGHT be, does not mean that He does not know what WILL be.

[Bee Eff]

How about Peter. That was an act that was required of Peter to fulfill, and it had a time limit, and it was against everything Peter thought would happen. Was he forced to deny Christ? Was this Christs doing? If not, how then did He know that Peter would deny Him thrice before the bird (because the sight won't allow the type of bird) crowed? This was an exact prophecy.

And you were talking about timing on the Mary issue, but could God have just waited? There were prophecies of Christs coming specific to the year from 600 years before the birth! So what if Mary's parents felt inspired with her name...what if she sinned gravely and wasn't then a good fit to be Christs mother? Did God have a lot of Mary's sitting in the wings who could also be virgin mothers to Christ?

How about the prophecy of the Prophets in the book of Revelations? Seems pretty specific in what will happen there.

How about Judas? Christ prophecied that one of His apostles would betray Him. Did He force Judas to do it?

There is a reason that God always gives a good outcome bad outcome scenario. He does it so that there is full disclosure. He's not just going to go to someone and say, when you don't do this, you will then be punished in this manner. Him telling of possibilities does not mean He doesn't know which possibility will be chosen. Once again, His foreknowledge in no way means He compels choices.

Given an infinite number of possibilities, it is entirely possible that the statements/prophecies made came from a series of probabilities that approached a probability of 100%, so close that one could say that the event was absolute and fixed in the future.

I also believe that while free will is existent, do our choice become fixed at some point based on a choice made at some point in our past? Was there a choice that each of us made at one point or another that made another course of action so improbable that we had set our future to a predetermined path? Given this, while God did not have a knowledge of an absolute and exact future, the probabilities, over time, could have led to a point where real choices are limited to only a select few for each individual and those choices propel us down a narrow band of probability, and because of the number of people that probability narrows further.

Not knowing an absolute and exact future does not imply that God is not nearly absolute in his knowledge of what will happen in the future.

Peter and Judas were immediately present events, very little time between prophecy and event. I am sure that God can state what will happen with perfection at that point. Perhaps even given a few thousand years gap, or maybe even given a few millenia he could as well. This does not imply an absolute and exact knowledge of the future.

Revelations is anything but specific. The language is such that it could be overly symbolic and metaphorical. Some even believe that the events described in Revelations occurred within the very first century or so following Christ. Many speculate that every natural disaster is fulfilling some part of Revelations, that each new violent antagonist in global politics is fulfilling part of the book. Maybe each of them could have fulfilled a portion of Revelations if they had gone further or not been opposed as they were. Maybe "no man knoweth" simply because the timing is in reality a variable based on other variables.

[Bee Eff]

What is time to God? Just because the future does not exist for you does not mean that it doesn't exists in Gods understanding of time. You are limiting God to your imperfect ability to view things as God does.

Time is only a relation of events. God has defined himself by time simply by giving if/then conditionals. If/then simply by itself sets time.

I am not limiting God at all. Stating that not knowing the non-existent is a limitation is a fallacy. I believe that man has created an expectation of God that is beyond reason. The early church was influenced by the greek philosophers to take a position that creation was ex-nihilo for the same rationale that you use here. They stated that God crafting the universe was somehow demeaning God, the same probably goes for much of current beliefs concerning God. God must exist within time, simply by virtue of the fact that he acts within time. It does not lessen God to claim that he abides within his laws.