There is no free will if God is omniscient

[nicolasconnault]

Again, this misses the point. That God, on your view, restrains his omnipotence implies that he could know what everyone will do in the future if he wanted. But, that just means that there are facts about what you will do in the future. So, look, let's suppose that it's a fact that you will eat a red apple on January 5th 2011 at 12:00p where you live. But, let's take your view that God, to protect your agency, restrains his knowledge and does not know this fact. But, notice that whether God knows you will eat that apple or not, it's just a fact that you will. So, even if God restrains his knowledge, if it's true that he could know what you will do, then it's true that you can't do otherwise than what you will do

[Brade]

I said "restrain his omnipotence", not his omniscience.

Te he...oops. What's funny is that I even wrote "omnipotence" but I thought I wrote "omniscience". Reminds me of the other day when I walked into the kitchen intent on pouring a glass of milk. As I got the milk out of the fridge I decided I also wanted some cereal. So, what did I do? I got out a bowl and poured a bowl full of milk. It wasn't until I finished pouring a bowl full of milk that I realized I'd gotten confused. Sadly, this is the story of my life.

[nicolasconnault]

But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things (2 Nephi 2:24)

O how great the holiness of our God! For he knoweth all things, and there is not anything save he knoweth it! (2 Nephi 9:20)

The idea that God doesn't know everything comes from the philosophies of men. It is not scriptural. As someone aptly said:

The god of the philosophers is not available for religious purposes.

[Brade]

The idea that God doesn't know everything comes from the philosophies of men. It is not scriptural. As someone aptly said:

That's fine. But, if God knows everything, including the future actions of agents, then those agents are not free (in the sense of being able to do otherwise), for the reasons I've explained throughout this thread. Agents may be free by some other definition of free will, but if there are already facts about what agents will do in the future, then the sort of free will they have is not the ability-to-do-otherwise sort.

[Jeff K.]

It would be like the professor in a class giving the test who knew what answer each student would make before the test. What would be the point of any test if he knew before hand you would fail.

The point would be the experience of the students, not the test itself.

I am intrigued by what you did though, a convincing and embarrassing act sounds like a daily double that you can't help but smile about.

[nicolasconnault]

That's fine. But, if God knows everything, including the future actions of agents, then those agents are not free (in the sense of being able to do otherwise), for the reasons I've explained throughout this thread.

That's incorrect. We are free to do an infinite number of things. God just knows which of these infinite choices we will make.

A parent knows that a child who learns to walk will fall and hurt himself. As a wise parent, however, he will not stop the child from learning to walk, neither will he cause the child to fall. The parent has the power to stop the child from walking and falling, as well as the knowledge that walking must occur for future growth and correct development, and the knowledge that learning to grow always includes falling and pain. The child still has the freedom to learn to walk. This analogy isn't perfect, of course, because a child doesn't really choose to walk, but it can be transposed to a child learning to write, to a teenager deciding to experiment with drugs etc.

I quoted scriptures to demonstrate that God is omniscient. I am equally able and willing to quote scriptures to demonstrate that we have freedom of choice.

[RadioFreeDeath]

If we are free though and we are capable of choosing. How benevolent is God to know which of us will go to which kingdoms and those that will go to outer darkness. He than knows full well certain people will go to outer darkness and makes them willingly. This is hardly benevolent since that means he knowingly damns them.

[Jeff K.]

I wonder about the mother who keeps the child at home rather than let the child play, and fall, and scrape his knee, and make mistakes. The mother keeps the child locked away in the home, not allowing that child out lest anything bad happen. The mother makes all the decisions, because she knows whats best..... Isn't that the most benevolent of mothers?

[Jeff K.]

This is hardly benevolent since that means he knowingly damns them.

Do you see a difference between knowingly damning someone and giving them freedom, knowing that some will damn themselves?

[nicolasconnault]

Allow me to expound a bit on what I just wrote.

God's knowledge does not determine what we do with our agency. Instead, his knowledge includes everything we will do with our agency. I suppose this is where God differs from us: he is able to give complete agency in absolute knowledge of what we will do with it.

The idea that God doesn't know "what we will do next" makes no sense to me. It depicts a God who can be surprised, who can be tricked, conned, manipulated, and who sometimes knows less than we do about certain things.

If you cannot reconcile God's omniscience with our agency, then you may need to consider whether there is a flaw somewhere in your reasoning. Personally when I come across seemingly illogical principles in theology, I prayerfully turn to the scriptures and the teachings of prophets, and I always find that I was missing something in my reasoning.

[Jeff K.]

If God does not know everything, then can't we surmise that he might be wrong regarding the plan of salvation?

[Jason]

It would be like the professor in a class giving the test who knew what answer each student would make before the test. What would be the point of any test if he knew before hand you would fail.

The test is a learning experience for the students, not a tool for the professor to determine who will pass.

Yes God knows exactly who will make it to the Celestial Kingdom and who won't. However we can't actually learn the skills we would need to function in the Celestial Kingdom without taking the test first.

Likewise God knows who will choose to do terrible actions worthy of condemnation to the lower kingdoms or even Outer Darkness. However it is manifestly unjust to condemn someone for what they will do rather than what they actually have done. These individuals must have the opportunity to actually commit those actions.

Without the actual experience we would not have the skills and not be worthy of condemnation or exaltation, and God's judgements could not be called just.

[Brade]

That's incorrect. We are free to do an infinite number of things. God just knows which of these infinite choices we will make.

Then that just means that we cannot do other than what God knows we will do. In other words, we cannot do otherwise.

A parent knows that a child who learns to walk will fall and hurt himself. As a wise parent, however, he will not stop the child from learning to walk, neither will he cause the child to fall. The parent has the power to stop the child from walking and falling, as well as the knowledge that walking must occur for future growth and correct development, and the knowledge that learning to grow always includes falling and pain. The child still has the freedom to learn to walk. This analogy isn't perfect, of course, because a child doesn't really choose to walk, but it can be transposed to a child learning to write, to a teenager deciding to experiment with drugs etc.

This analogy just doesn't work in this context. Parents, as we know of them, don't know their children will fall in the way that you're suggesting God knows what we will do. For the sake of argument, I'll just grant that parents do know, in some sense, that their children will fall (although, there are good philosophical reasons to doubt that, at least if we're using "know" with any precision). Note that even if we say that parents know their children will fall, they can only know that generally. I doubt any parent knows the exact moment and location their child will fall in the future. That's the kind of knowledge we're talking about when we use the term "omniscience" in this context. Stories of parents knowing things about their children simply are not analogous and don't add anything to this issue.

I quoted scriptures to demonstrate that God is omniscient. I am equally able and willing to quote scriptures to demonstrate that we have freedom of choice.

Scripture isn't unambiguous.

Look, let's just consider, for a moment, that it's true that God is omniscient in the sense of even knowing future acts of agents, and that it's true that agents have free will in the sense of being able to do otherwise. Now, consider the following proposition:

Tom will eat a red apple on January 5th, 2011

Imagine, for a moment, that the above proposition is true (let's call that proposition 'P'), and consider the following:

1. If God knows something, then what God knows is true. (God can't be wrong)

2. If God knows that P, then P is true.

3. God knows that P.

4. Therefore, P.

But, you also want to say that people are free in the sense of being able to do otherwise. Now, let's imagine that Tom, because he has the ability to do other than eat a red apple on January 5th, 2011, decides to not eat a red apple on January 5th, 2011; and, in fact, doesn't eat a red apple on January 5th, 2011. But, now look what happens:

5. Not P (Tom doesn't eat the apple)

Notice that 2 can be rewritten as "If it's false that P is true, then it's false that God knows that P". To see that this works, consider the conditional "If Missy is a cat, then Missy is a mammal" entails that if Missy is not a mammal, then Missy is not a cat. Thus:

6. If it's false that P is true, then it's false that God knows that P

Since we have assumed that Tom has the ability to do otherwise, and we've assumed that he has in fact done otherwise, we have 5; which just tells us that it was false that P. But, notice that in combination with 6, that means that:

7. It's false that God knows that P.

Now look what we have. An outright contradiction. 7 says that God doesn't know P, but 3 says that he does. My sketch is a bit crude, and there are more sophisticated ways of showing all this, but this is exactly what you end up with, every time, when you try to combine free will in the sense of being able to do otherwise with omniscience in the sense of knowing things about what people will do

[Ceeboo]

Anyone know where I can find a tutor for this thread ?????

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Brade]

Anyone know where I can find a tutor for this thread ?????

Peace,

Ceeboo

Blake Ostler might be available...Although, as a lawyer, his prices might be a bit steep.

[Jason]

Ok, then that just means that it's already a fact that you will make it to the Celestial Kingdom or not. If that's a fact, and God knows it, and God can't be mistaken, then there's nothing you can do to change where you end up.

Yes, I've recognized before on this board that it is a seeming paradox.

The scriptures show God predicting such trivial details as Joseph Smtih and his father being named Joseph three thousand years and more before either was born - long before the name Joseph even existed in its English form. This would seem to indicate that God can predict pretty much anything with 100% accuracy.

Yet they also insist that His judgements are just. Condemnation of action cannot be just if one has no choice and could not have done otherwise. Therefore despite God's 100% predictive ability we do have full responsibility for our choices as if we determined them.

It seems to me that this is a paradox simply because we do not understand God's perspective and find it difficult to think on eternal scales. I am interested in possible resolutions, but their current absence does not overly trouble me.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 05 January 2010 - 09:49 AM, said:

If God does not know everything, then can't we surmise that he might be wrong regarding the plan of salvation?

That doesn't follow from the claim that God doesn't know everything. Also, it's worth noting that on the view I'm advocating God actually does know everything. There simply are no such things as facts about future agents (properly construed). So, it's not as if God is missing knowledge that he could have. Rather, there just anything any such knowledge to know about what I, or you, or anyone else, will do in the future.

Why doesn't if follow? We would the premise that God is ignorant of some things. Tee question them becomes an extent of God's ignorance, not whether or not He is ignorant. Imagine Satan's delight when he can use that tool? And what does it say about faith?

And I disagree with the position of "missing knowledge". If you do not know something, but it does exist, it is indeed missing. Imagine what would happen if someone "surprised" Heavenly Father in a council and came up with a distinct plan that hadn't been thought of before. That individual did something "unpredictable".

Now faith is defined as a a'hope for things which are not seen which are true" (Alma 32). The element I want to focus on is "true" or "truth". Truth is the knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come" (Doctrine and Covenants 93).

So faith is the belief in something that is true.

Let us also note the followin in 93

The Spirit of truth is of God. I am the Spirit of truth, and John bore record of me, saying: He received a fulness of truth, yea, even of all truth;

This is why I believe Heavenly Father is Omniscient in knowing all things both past, present and future.

[Brade]

Yes, I've recognized before on this board that it is a seeming paradox.

The scriptures show God predicting such trivial details as Joseph Smtih and his father being named Joseph three thousand years and more before either was born - long before the name Joseph even existed in its English form. This would seem to indicate that God can predict pretty much anything with 100% accuracy.

Yet they also insist that His judgements are just. Condemnation of action cannot be just if one has no choice and could not have done otherwise. Therefore despite God's 100% predictive ability we do have full responsibility for our choices as if we determined them.

It seems to me that this is a paradox simply because we do not understand God's perspective and find it difficult to think on eternal scales. I am interested in possible resolutions, but their current absence does not overly trouble me.

While I take the view that divine foreknowledge can't be harmonized with libertarian free will, I understand that reasonable people can disagree. It's admirable that you at least recognize the paradox. I've skimmed through some of the more recent attempts to harmonize libertarian free will with foreknowledge, but, if I'm remembering right, they make use of strange conceptions of time that, to me, seem implausible, and, if they are true, we really don't have good reason to adopt.

Anyway, as to prediction, I just take the view that sometimes God steps in and, because he has the power to do so, causes things to be the way he wants them to be. No view of libertarian free will, that I know of, advocates the position that every human action must be free in the libertarian sense for agents to have libertarian freedom (the ability to do otherwise). So, it's fine by me if God sometimes steps in and causes the world to be the way he wants it to be.

Why doesn't if follow?

Because the plan of salvation is his plan and God can't be wrong about what he wants to do. From the fact that I don't know the future, it doesn't follow that I don't know my own plans. Also, God is more capable than me at carrying out the plans he makes so that if he intends for something to happen on a certain day at a certain time, he's probably got the power to bring it about, come hell or high water.

And I disagree with the position of "missing knowledge". If you do not know something, but it does exist, it is indeed missing.

Right, and remember that I said that if you do not know something because there is no knowledge to know, then you aren't missing anything; I'm not sure how your comment is relevant to what I said. So, I agree with this: "If you do not know something, but it does exist, it is indeed missing." I mean, it just seems obvious. But, that doesn't contradict anything I said, so I don't know how that shows how you disagree with me.

...This is why I believe Heavenly Father is Omniscient in knowing all things both past, present and future.

That's fine, and you're free to believe that for those reasons. I'm just saying that omniscience in the sense you're advocating entails contradictions when combined with free will in the sense of being able to do otherwise.

[Mordecai]

Yes, I've recognized before on this board that it is a seeming paradox.

The scriptures show God predicting such trivial details as Joseph Smtih and his father being named Joseph three thousand years and more before either was born - long before the name Joseph even existed in its English form. This would seem to indicate that God can predict pretty much anything with 100% accuracy.

Yet they also insist that His judgements are just. Condemnation of action cannot be just if one has no choice and could not have done otherwise.

I think it's a little like Minority Report. There is no paradox. To be truly free in the ultimate sense, we must have greater knowledge. If God told Joseph Smith's father not to name his son Joseph, he wouldn't have... or he would have. There is contingency, where there is knowledge:

16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.

No one controls us, unless we are being enticed by only one. Being enticed by both good and evil, we choose between the two. Perhaps people's definition of choice is based on false premises. How are we controlled, just because God knows how we choose? I don't see it.

Therefore despite God's 100% predictive ability we do have full responsibility for our choices as if we determined them.

We clearly did determine them. I don't understand why people think this is a paradox. We are not being controlled by God's knowledge. As long as we are given choices between good and evil, we are free to choose

[wenglund]

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

Your thoughts?

If I know today that you drank Coca Cola yesterday, does that mean you had no free will to have decided that?

If knowing what you did in the past doesn't negate free will, then how does knowing what you will do in the future negate free will. (HInt: it doesn't)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Zakuska]

An intresting fact...

When my wife first moved to Salt Lake about 18 years ago she was working at a local Sizzlers in Sugar House. She likes to tell the story of serving the table of President Monson and his wife with Large glasses of Coka-Cola. It truley must be the drink of the Gods!

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 05 January 2010 - 10:30 AM, said:

Why doesn't if follow?

Because the plan of salvation is his plan and God can't be wrong about what he wants to do. From the fact that I don't know the future, it doesn't follow that I don't know my own plans. Also, God is more capable than me at carrying out the plans he makes so that if he intends for something to happen on a certain day at a certain time, he's probably got the power to bring it about, come hell or high water.

Exactly, he cannot be wrong about what he wants to do, because he knows that is the best course open to all. If he did not know, that someone elses plan might be better, leaving the possibility open that perhaps Satan did have a better idea (which we all rejected). It isn't about being more capable as it is about certainty of the plan, not the power to make the processes in the plan work.

Quote

And I disagree with the position of "missing knowledge". If you do not know something, but it does exist, it is indeed missing.

Right, and remember that I said that if you do not know something because there is no knowledge to know, then you aren't missing anything; I'm not sure how your comment is relevant to what I said. So, I agree with this: "If you do not know something, but it does exist, it is indeed missing." I mean, it just seems obvious. But, that doesn't contradict anything I said, so I don't know how that shows how you disagree with me.

That is where you and I disagree. I believe in objective knowledge, that knowledge as a whole exists (hence the definition of truth which shows that). If I do not have the truth, then I am not omniscient, ie I only know some parts of the truth because I am missing other parts. Truth is, in its essence "knowledge".

Quote

...This is why I believe Heavenly Father is Omniscient in knowing all things both past, present and future.

That's fine, and you're free to believe that for those reasons. I'm just saying that omniscience in the sense you're advocating entails contradictions when combined with free will in the sense of being able to do otherwise.

Now faith is defined as a a'hope for things which are not seen which are true" (Alma 32). The element I want to focus on is "true" or "truth". Truth is the knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come" (Doctrine and Covenants 93).

So faith is the belief in something that is true.

Let us also note the followin in 93

The Spirit of truth is of God. I am the Spirit of truth, and John bore record of me, saying: He received a fulness of truth, yea, even of all truth;

This is why I believe Heavenly Father is Omniscient in knowing all things both past, present and future.

Basically I have shown that God received a full (not partial and not some) portion of truth, yea even all truth. And I have established that within that exact same context truth was defined as the knowledge of things as they were, as they are and as they will be.

Now lets add to that and consider that the foundation of our church is built on faith, our first principle.

Jesus Christ then, we know is omniscient. We also know we are free to choose, that too is immutable. I would submit therefore that the contradictions presented are artificial and the reasoning behind the contradictions is incorrect if the other cariables are equally immutable.

We know these things because they are the basic doctrines of our church found in the Doctrine and Covenants.

Now if you have something from scripture that counters such a position, then I might see more reason for the doubt.

I have not seen how an observer undermines choice. Because someone other than myself knows, does not limit my capacity to choose anymore than a sun in an unknown and impossibly faraway galaxy impact my ability here to stay warm. There is no exchange of information, so there can be no influence and if there is no influence, then there is freedom of choice.

I am reconciling the question of the fixed variables... ie agency, truth, faith, knowledge, all of which are clearly explained (actually agency is not clearly explained, or not nearly as clearly as knowledge and truth and the possesion of it). Perhaps agency needs to be more closely defined and perhaps the weakness is in the definition of agency that we presume.

These variables therefore become fixed, they are immutable. So is the contradiction really the reasoning you are using when

[Jeff K.]

An intresting fact...

When my wife first moved to Salt Lake about 18 years ago she was working at a local Sizzlers in Sugar House. She likes to tell the story of serving the table of President Monson and his wife with Large glasses of Coka-Cola. It truley must be the drink of the Gods!

Sure can be if you are thirsty, but for me the nectar is Martinellis Apple, use to drink it as an apfel beir in my youth, always produced a nice foamy head.

[Jeff K.]

If I know today that you drank Coca Cola yesterday, does that mean you had no free will to have decided that?

If knowing what you did in the past doesn't negate free will, then how does knowing what you will do in the future negate free will. (HInt: it doesn't)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Holy time paradox's Batman, that was a good question.

[Mordecai]

Sure can be if you are thirsty, but for me the nectar is Martinellis Apple, use to drink it as an apfel beir in my youth, always produced a nice foamy head.

I don't know how many people have a Trader Joe's near their homes, but that place sells the best sparkling drinks. Sparkling pomegranate is amazing!