There is no free will if God is omniscient

[Jason]

I remember we have discussed something similar in the past. I cannot see God doing this and still retaining free agency. Clearly whether or not we have a "fair test" is highly dependent on the free will choices of other agents.

And as God knows what the outcome of all of those choices are, He was able to set up a fair test for everyone by carefully choosing who was born where and other occasional interference to set up fair circumstances.

If Dan's "fair test" requires marriage to Susan and God knows factors X, Y and Z will cause Susan to chose to marry Dan and God supplies factors X, Y and Z it is not Susan that is choosing to marry Dan God is choosing for her. If God knows infallibly ahead of time what will cause someone to choose a certain path and God provides those causes God is the one doing the choosing. In any case this is getting somewhat off topic.

But God does not provide factors X, Y, and Z that will cause someone to choose something - at least, not something that is related to the ultimate outcome of their test - it would be more accurate to say that God sees that factors X, Y, and Z are necessary in order to give Susan the chance to make the choice of marrying Dan, a part of her fair test, and God then provides those factors. It's still up to Susan to make the right choice to marry Dan when the opportunity presents itself.

Then God is using something besides perfect foreknowledge of the future.

Yes He is - He is also using a perfect foreknowledge of what would have happened if circumstances had been different.

If God sees action X in the future action X will happen by definition of perfect foreknowledge. If perfect foreknowledge of the actual future is true God cannot change the future or he does not have perfect foreknowledge.

Correct. It just so happens that God's perfect foreknowledge also includes the actions of an omnipotent being - God Himself, a being who has unlimited ability to manipulate reality to match His desires - and so the future turns out exactly as He wished it to, and always would have.

If God has perfect foreknowledge and sees in the actual future Dan's test is suboptimal there is nothing God can do to change this the future is fixed. It appears to me you are referring to not perfect foreknowledge of the actual future but perfect foreknowledge of possible futures. That is God knows perfectly what Dan will choose given circumstances X, Y, Z. This is not the same as knowing what Dan will do with a perfect knowledge in the actual future.

God knows both what would happen in any particular set of circumstances and what will actually happen, which He Himself also acted in bringing about. What will actually happen and what God always knew would happen is the optimal result for giving Dan a fair test.

I will also add your formulation requires contradictory "tests" not be possible. Suppose Ben's "fair test" requires that Joe not have a "fair test". For example suppose Ben and Joe are brothers Joe by living a life of sin is just the example Ben needed to decided to live a life of faith. For Ben his optimal "fair test" is to see how Joe suffers when he sins. While for Joe his optimal test would not be to live a life of sin. Now you can always simply respond by claiming contradictory "tests" are impossible but it is not at all clear why this must necessarily be the case. And if indeed contradictory tests are possible it is logically impossible for God to ensure every test is optimal.

Contradictory tests are impossible. They are impossible because God ensured that every test will be optimal and will not interfere with any other, and this is not logically impossible if God knows the outcome of every decision in every circumstance.

If Ben requires that someone he is close to live a life of sin in order to have his (Ben's) fair test then God, who knows that Joe will fail his fair test and live a life of sin will ensure that Joe is Ben's brother and will be in the position to benefit Ben.

Joe's test is no less fair from God having already known what the results would be and planning around it to benefit others (specifically Ben in this example).

I think a better view is suboptimal life circumstances are handled in the judgment. That is God when judging us will take into account any suboptimal "tests" we may have undergone.

Tests only appear suboptimal to us, in our current mortal perspective. When any person who received what apepared to be a "suboptimal" test reaches the judgement bar and is given the benefit of God's perspective, they will declare that God's judgements are fully just and their test was completely fair, whether they passed it or not.

[Jason]

This example removes God from the equation. Was it not God who Rasied up Joseph? So God isn't "Predicting" anything. He is telling us what he is going to do 1000s of years before he does them because he hass the table of contents and can jump ahead. (Amos 3:7)

But to know even the general outline of the table of contents thousands of years before requires knowing what individuals would choose.

[elguanteloko]

elguanteloko, this just doesn't work. In the context of window breaking story, I want you to, again, consider the following proposition:

You could have done other than break a window at time T and place P.

Every proposition is either true or false (principle of bivalence). Additionally, the law of non-contradiction tells us that a proposition cannot be true and false. Let's call the above proposition 'Q'. Q is either true or false. Additionally, it can't be the case that Q and not-Q. If Q is true, then you could have done other than break a window at time T and place P. If Q is false, then you could not have done other than break a window at time T and place P. It's just that simple. Which is it, is Q true or false. Unless you're prepared to defend a position against the principle of bivalence and the law of non-contradiction, you've got to choose one or the other

[wenglund]

If God could not prefectly predict the actions of intelligent agents He could not ensure that everyone had a perfectly fair test - one in which each indivdiual agent was ultimately completely responsible for their fate (that is, whether they would be worthy of exaltation) despite the free actions of the others.

Were it the case that God couldn't perfectly make such predictions, I am not sure I would have a problem with that since I am able to manage quite well in mortality without perfect prediction.

To me, whether God is absolutely omniscient or relatively omniscient or has no capacity to know the future at all, doesn't negate the verity of the gospel as the best means for progressing to become like Christ. Whatever God may or may not be able to do, it is still in everyone's interst to feed the hungry, heal the sick, cloth the naked, and so forth.

In other words, our progression in faith ought not be dependant which side we may come down on such philosophical questions.

But, that may just be me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Uncertain]

And as God knows what the outcome of all of those choices are, He was able to set up a fair test for everyone by carefully choosing who was born where and other occasional interference to set up fair circumstances.

But God does not provide factors X, Y, and Z that will cause someone to choose something - at least, not something that is related to the ultimate outcome of their test - it would be more accurate to say that God sees that factors X, Y, and Z are necessary in order to give Susan the chance to make the choice of marrying Dan, a part of her fair test, and God then provides those factors. It's still up to Susan to make the right choice to marry Dan when the opportunity presents itself.

If God knows infallibly that Susan will chose to marry Dan given circumstances X, Y and Z and God provides, arranges or supplies circumstances X, Y and Z then God is ultimately responsible for what Susan does. Sure Susan is the one who decides but if God knows infallibly what she will decide under a certain set of circumstances and he provides those circumstances God is the one ultimately responsible for Susans actions. How can it be otherwise? There is no "chance" in Susans decisions God knows with a perfect knowledge what she will do under a certain set of inputs therefore if God provides those inputs God is the one responsible for Susans actions.

Yes He is - He is also using a perfect foreknowledge of what would have happened if circumstances had been different.

Correct. It just so happens that God's perfect foreknowledge also includes the actions of an omnipotent being - God Himself, a being who has unlimited ability to manipulate reality to match His desires - and so the future turns out exactly as He wished it to, and always would have.

God knows both what would happen in any particular set of circumstances and what will actually happen, which He Himself also acted in bringing about. What will actually happen and what God always knew would happen is the optimal result for giving Dan a fair test.

You appear to be arguing God uses his infallible foreknowledge of the actual future in order to change what the actual future would be. This is logically impossible by definition of infallible foreknowledge. You would argue God at time T using infallible foreknowledge of the actual future sees Dan having an unfair test. And this then causes God to change circumstances such that at time T+X God sees using his foreknowledge that Dan now has a fair test. But this scenario is logically impossible if God at time T foresaw in the actual future Dan having an unfair test and at time T+X he sees Dan having a fair test either at time T or T+X God must not have been infallible at T or T+X by definition of infallibility. It is logically impossible for God to change the future such that the future is different than what he saw at time T if God indeed has infallible foreknowledge.

If I understand you correctly you would argue God at time T would have infallibly saw his intervention that causes Dan to have a fair test. However the reason for Gods intervening could not have been because he infallibly saw in the actual future Dan having an unfair test. If God intervenes to provide Dan with a fair test and he has infallible foreknowledge he must have intervened for some other reason then he infallible say Dan in the actual future having an unfair test.

[Jason]

If God knows infallibly that Susan will chose to marry Dan given circumstances X, Y and Z and God provides, arranges or supplies circumstances X, Y and Z then God is ultimately responsible for what Susan does. Sure Susan is the one who decides but if God knows infallibly what she will decide under a certain set of circumstances and he provides those circumstances God is the one ultimately responsible for Susans actions. How can it be otherwise? There is no "chance" in Susans decisions God knows with a perfect knowledge what she will do under a certain set of inputs therefore if God provides those inputs God is the one responsible for Susans actions.

As I've said, it appears to be a paradox.

God always knew what choice Susan would make but Susan did in fact make that choice freely, or she could not be held accountable for her choice.

The answer appears to be that God helped to create the necessary opportunity without actually forcing the outcome.

If I understand you correctly you would argue God at time T would have infallibly saw his intervention that causes Dan to have a fair test. However the reason for Gods intervening could not have been because he infallibly saw in the actual future Dan having an unfair test.

Correct, He did not see the "actual" future in which Dan would have an unfair test, because that future never actually happened, because of His intervention, which He foresaw.

[LeSellers]

Ah, ok. Now, if somebody with the right God-like attributes could have known, 1,000,000 years ago, that you would type "yes." on the MADB forums on January 5th 2010 at 9:26pm (your time), then that just means that there already was a fact about what you would do on January 5th, 2010 at 9:26pm.

Not necessarily so.

Let's see "time" (as we experience it) as a circle or spiral, with God in the center. All points of "time" are equidistant from Him and there is no difference between 201001052126 and any other "time" in any "place": He can "see" all time anytime He chooses.

Now, if this is the case, He has already seen, without "causing" the entirety of the world ("the end from the beginning" as it were). His "reporting" an act that He has already seen, in His "past", but in our future, does not mean that He caused or desired that act to occur.

2 The same [the Lord your God, even Jesus Christ] which knoweth all things, for all things are present before mine eyes;

Lehi

[Brade]

Not necessarily so.

Let's see "time" (as we experience it) as a circle or spiral, with God in the center. All points of "time" are equidistant from Him and there is no difference between 201001051726 and any other "time" in any "place": He can "see" all time anytime He chooses.

Now, if this is the case, He has already seen, without "causing" the entirety of the world ("the end from the beginning" as it were). His "reporting" an act that He has already seen, in His "past", but in our future, does not mean that He caused or desired that act to occur.

Lehi

Again, and hopefully for the last time, nothing I've said in this thread amounts to my advocating the position that if God knows what we will do, then God is the cause of our actions. I feel like I ought to put this in my sig so that people stop attributing this view to me.

wengland, I do intend to respond to your last post, but I might not get to it until tomorrow. Just depends on some things.

[JDave]

Always a fascinating topic for me. I cling to libertarian free will, because it just feels right. Yet there is that paradox with future facts about my decisions already being known. I find some solace in the thought that it was my actual choice (in the future) that created that fact. But how can that fact, defined by my future free will choice, already be known? Because if it is already a fact now, then in the future I can't do otherwise. But in the future I can do otherwise, and I make that decision to create that fact.

"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff." -- Doctor Who

Here was a question that came to my mind, and why I am posting. What is the implication of the following question:

If God knows the future, and the future is dependent upon God, and upon God's actions, then does God know in advance what decisions He will make?

[LeSellers]

Again, and hopefully for the last time, nothing I've said in this thread amounts to my advocating the position that if God knows what we will do, then God is the cause of our actions.

I responded to your "that just means that there already was a fact about what you would do" comment. That I expanded on it, and answered a host of others' post does mean I attributed their position to you.

I recall a story about a man watching a movie with a friend. He bet him the character would do (or not do) a certain thing. He lost the bet. His friend said, "I can't believe you made that bet, everyone knows he did it." The man answered, "Yeah, I know. I've seen the movie before. I just couldn't believe he'd do it again."

Lehi

[smac97]

If God knew yesterday I was going to drink coca- cola today, then I have no free will to decide that.

Utter bilge.

I know that if you jump out of an airplane at 30,000 feet without a parachute, you will die. You would still have "free will to decide" whether to jump out of an airplane at 30,000 feet without a parachute, regardless of whether the consequence is known.

-Smac

[nicolasconnault]

If God cannot know the future actions of free agents, then He could not have known anything that Jesus would do, before, during and after his mortal sojourn. That would have been a mighty big gamble, wouldn't it? Not sure 100% that he would go through with the atonement...

[nicolasconnault]

Another random thought: do you think God would benefit from hindsight? Would He do things differently, had he known in advance how things would turn out?

[Mordecai]

I am going to say that yes, we can't choose differently than what God knows we will do. so?

But we can choose differently, if God decides to inform us of what we would have done and helps steer us in another direction.

[Deborah]

But we can choose differently, if God decides to inform us of what we would have done and helps steer us in another direction.

But then wouldn't his foreknowledge have told him, "If tell ____ to turn right instead of left he will be better off" knowing full well ___would listen to him and do as he asks. That is basically what happened at Nineveh. Jonah didn't want to warn the people because he didn't want them to repent; plus he was afraid how he might be received. Why was God so persistent with Jonah had he not known that the people would repent and that Jonah would eventually do what he told him to?

[MannyPaquio]

Something to think about... "What about when God becomes a slider?"

We see him shuffling the deck of several Alternate realities before finally making the Choice and Revealing it to his servants the Prophets.

Amos 7

1 Thus hath the Lord God shewed unto me; and, behold, he formed grasshoppers in the beginning of the shooting up of the latter growth; and, lo, it was the latter growth after the king

[nicolasconnault]

Sorry to resurrect this topic again, but I've come across another aspect of the "God cannot know the future actions of free agents" theory which bothers me:

Proponents of this theory on this thread have several times conceded that God can accurately predict the future thanks to his infinite knowledge of the past and the present. Someone even gave an arbitrary figure of 99.9% accuracy.

For the 0.1% of cases in which something surprised God, I am told that He simply intervenes in some undefined way to make sure that his original plans are not frustrated.

Now here the problem I find: if God can predict the actions of free agents with such accuracy, that means he can predict with the same accuracy who will be saved, and who will not.

I am really not sure what the big difference is between absolute knowledge of the future, and near-perfect ability to predict the future.

Would anyone care to comment?

[MannyPaquio]

As to the part about not having free because God is aware you are going to drink one... I don't agree, that God's foreknowledge of all events and free will are mutually exclusive or even at odds with one another really.

You might find this interesting.. or at least relevant to the topic, but not only is God aware of what will occur, but he is also aware of what won't occur, as well. This sort of changes the discussion if that is the case. I would site this bit from Matthew.

The mere fact that he knows what we will do, negates our free will. Therefore, all events are determined, not free by his knowledge.

Mat 11:21 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

Mat 11:22 But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you.

Mat 11:23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

Mat 11:24 But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.

Here we see that Christ seems aware of what would have happened if the mighty works he refers to were done in other places and times. It sets a precedent that God is aware of an infinitude of counter possibilities if things had gone differently.

It's either:

A.) God knows all possible outcomes, but not the one I will actually take. (God doesn't know everything, but I do have free will)

OR

B.) God knows all possible outcomes, including which one I will actually take. (God knows everything, but I have no free will)

Which is it?

So let me ask you this. If God knows what happens if you buy a Coke and also if you don't buy a Coke, does this mean you don't free choice to buy a Coke?

Respectfully,

Mudcat

Once again, if God knows what my choice will be, then I don't have free will.

For example: God, being omniscient, would know that exactly two years from now, you are going to make a left turn while driving. You might argue that you had two choices: to continue driving straight, or to turn left. However, the fact that God knows that you are going to turn left raises the question of whether or not you ever actually had a choice in the first place, since your eventual decision was already known and, therefore, predetermined.

See where I'm getting at?

Omniscient God = No free will

[nicolasconnault]

For example: God, being omniscient, would know that exactly two years from now, you are going to make a left turn while driving. You might argue that you had two choices: to continue driving straight, or to turn left. However, the fact that God knows that you are going to turn left raises the question of whether or not you ever actually had a choice in the first place, since your eventual decision was already known and, therefore, predetermined.

Predetermined is not the same as foreknown. I challenge the assumption you make in the bold part of your post.

To me, "freedom" means that you are not coerced in making a choice, and you have to think about your choice. In that sense, the fact that anyone (God or someone else) knows what I will do does NOT coerce me, or force me into making that choice, nor does it remove from me the need to think about the choice.

If I am not forced by anyone, and if I have to think about my choices, then I receive all the credit, all the benefits or negative effects, and take all the responsibility for my choices. It matters not, then, whether or not God knows which choice I will make.

[nicolasconnault]

Here's another question to answer: Did Jesus Christ have libertarian free will?

[Jason]

Here's another question to answer: Did Jesus Christ have libertarian free will?

Yes. Because Jesus' sacrifice would not have been of any worth if it were not freely given - that is, if Jesus had not been capable of doing otherwise.

[JDave]

Reposting this question for discussion:

If God knows the future, and the future is dependent upon God, and upon God's actions, then does God know in advance what decisions He will make?

[Jason]

Reposting this question for discussion:

If God knows the future, and the future is dependent upon God, and upon God's actions, then does God know in advance what decisions He will make?

Yes.

The next question is "then does God have free will?" right?

[wenglund]

May I just be clear in saying that my arguing against and rejecting the notion that foreknowledge negats free will, is not to suggest that I am arguing one way or the other about whether God has foreknowledge or not, or the extent to which he may have foreknowledge (limited omniscience or absolute omniscience). Frankly, I don' really know, nor do i much care. I am simply allowing philosophical room for members to reasonably conclude either way--not that it matters to the gospel plan which way we may chose to believe on this particular philosophical issue.

Thanks, -Wade Enlund-

[nicolasconnault]

Yes. Because Jesus' sacrifice would not have been of any worth if it were not freely given - that is, if Jesus had not been capable of doing otherwise.

So God didn't know for sure if Christ would go through with the atonement? All the prophecies given through prophets were mere approximations?

You realise that this means there was a risk that God's entire plan could have fallen flat on its head, and all of God's children become lost and fallen forever, becoming angels to the devil, with no resurrection or salvation from sin?