There is no free will if God is omniscient

[thesometimesaint]

ba81:

As a parent I knew with an absolute certainty each of my three child would touch the hot stove. Despite my repeated warnings not to do so, each one did touch the hot stove. Did I force them to do so? No of course not.

Heavenly Father made to conditions where we can choose to touch the hot stove(mortality). He does not force us to do it. Though he knows full well we will.

[Zakuska]

ba81:

As a parent I knew with an absolute certainty each of my three child would touch the hot stove. Despite my repeated warnings not to do so, each one did touch the hot stove. Did I force them to do so? No of course not.

Heavenly Father made to conditions where we can choose to touch the hot stove(mortality). He does not force us to do it. Though he knows full well we will.

This is also a perfect answer to the question someone brought up that "what kind of a God would bring children into the world knowing they would suffer and die a horendous death?"

I must ask what Kind of a God would fail to create something and give it the blessing of life even though he nows that life will end so Tragically?

Another good question... was it better that Bin Ladens mother never have conceived him knowing what she knows now?

[Kiviuq]

Why is it so hard to get a handle on the essence of this free will versus an all knowing deity discussion?

The very concept of knowing the future hurts my head. It

[Brade]

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-

You're right about one thing, and I've been stressing this throughout this thread, somebody's knowledge of what you will do in the future does not negate free will. The negation of your free will (in the sense of being able to do otherwise) is a consequence of the fact, if it is one, that there are facts at all about the future, whether anyone knows them at all.

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.

Look, let's just stipulate that God does know that his plan is the best one. That's fine. It doesn't follow from that that God knows, can know, or needs to know what every agent will do at every moment in time. There are other sillier problems with complete omniscience. Consider that knowing a fact is a separate thing from the fact itself. For somebody to grasp a fact, there must be some way to represent that fact. Now, imagine the smallest bit of the whole universe

[Jason]

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.

I'm not sure if that was the point of Minority Report. Pre-Crime was ultimately shut down because it was proven that the pre-cogs could be wrong (when someone chose to commit suicide rather than a murder). Can God be wrong in one of His predictions?

[Brade]

ba81:

As a parent I knew with an absolute certainty each of my three child would touch the hot stove. Despite my repeated warnings not to do so, each one did touch the hot stove. Did I force them to do so? No of course not.

I agree.

Heavenly Father made to conditions where we can choose to touch the hot stove(mortality). He does not force us to do it. Though he knows full well we will.

Right, and if God knows that we will touch the stove, and if God cannot ever be wrong, then it's false that we can fail to touch the stove. See how that works? Again, if God knows that you will perform X, and if God cannot ever be wrong, then it's false that you can fail to do X. The ability to do otherwise just means that you could perform X or you could choose to not perform X and instead perform Y. And, again, if God knows that you will perform X, and if God cannot ever be wrong, then you must perform X and you cannot do other than X. If you define "free will" as the ability to do otherwise (the ability to do Y instead of X), and if you cannot do other than X, then you do not have the ability to do otherwise; thus, you do not have free will.

[Luigi]

Free will is a very interesting concept since it is logically indefensible from any point of view. And the problem of omniscience of God is one such problem for the theistic perspective since if God can know the future it suggests that an individual's decision is like a calculus equation, it has a set response depending on the constants that went into them and anything variable like choice cannot be involved otherwise the outcome can't be known.

The other way of looking at the problem with free will from a theistic or even secular point of view is that each choice ultimately boils down to thoughts that essentially evaluate the probabilities of outcomes given the information available and emotions which give 'weight' to each of those outcomes. Given that the evaluative ability of the brain is not a choice (you can argue that one makes a 'choice' that later can cause damage to one's evaluative ability and that is true but if we go far enough back in a person's 'choices' they are using the evaluative tool they were endowed with-including the 'choice' that led to that damage) and that emotions are not really a choice either it is unclear how something like free will could enter to any part of that equation.

[callmenerd]

It's not a non-sequitur.

While your statement is (hypothetically) true, free will is NOT concerned with the person's view of reality and what they think they can and can't do. It deals with the ultimate state of reality. If there is a god in this reality who KNOWS everything that you will do (while you have the freedom to choose from your own point of view), the fact that He knows what you will choose negates your free will.

You are no longer making choices, but rather you're carrying out the motions since everything is predetermined by His knowledge.

How about this? Everything is predetermined, yeah? But, let's take that literally. EVERY possible choice you could make in this life with every possible outcome has been seen by God. Perhaps our problem is our perception of His Omniscience. Maybe seeing every outcome is what Omnisciency(new word?) is. So, free agency would then be the choosing of a reality from ALL realities God has already seen. I get what ya'll are saying. Congrats, you can say, "Hah! You don't KNOW what I'm going to choose! You don't KNOW what I'm going to choose!" Which is kinda true, but also kinda silly. He's giving you that option. He's seen all of what you possibly could produce and now is saying, "which do YOU want?" I'd say this is a beautiful gift and not reason to doubt His Omnipotence (which is where omniscience would stem from). This GIFT of choice is what ultimately will make us like Him. We are eternal (time transcending) intelligences.

So you're on this Game Show and you've just won, and the Host, who coincidentally is the designer of the Game Show, says, "Okay, Jonnie, you're the winner, which door are you going to choose?", and you say, "Hey, Bill, you know what I think?, YOU don't know which door I am going to choose do you!? Neener, neener, neener." So Bill, the Host, says, "Well, yeah, that's the plan, and why I just asked you." The funny thing is, Bill has seen the prize behind each of the doors.

[Ralph Man]

Blake Ostler doesn't tackle the argument so much as accept it. He thinks the argument that divine foreknowledge and libertarian free will are incompatible is sound. He rejects God having omniscient foreknowledge. Your mileage may vary. Another solution is to reject libertarian free will.

[Brade]

So you're on this Game Show and you've just won, and the Host, who coincidentally is the designer of the Game Show, says, "Okay, Jonnie, you're the winner, which door are you going to choose?", and you say, "Hey, Bill, you know what I think?, YOU don't know which door I am going to choose do you!? Neener, neener, neener." So Bill, the Host, says, "Well, yeah, that's the plan, and why I just asked you." The funny thing is, Bill has seen the prize behind each of the doors.

That's actually a clever way to talk about God's knowledge in terms of possibilities, but does Bill, the host, know which door Jonnie will choose? That's the question we're grappling with.

[Brade]

Blake Ostler doesn't tackle the argument so much as accept it. He thinks the argument that divine foreknowledge and libertarian free will are incompatible is sound. He rejects God having omniscient foreknowledge. Your mileage may vary. Another solution is to reject libertarian free will.

You're exactly right. It's obvious, I'm sure, but I happen to be a libertarian about free will. I don't think the view is unproblematic. The problem a lot of people have is that they want libertarian free will and divine foreknowledge, but don't think those views together entail a contradiction, when, in fact, they do.

[elguanteloko]

Free will is a very interesting concept since it is logically indefensible from any point of view. And the problem of omniscience of God is one such problem for the theistic perspective since if God can know the future it suggests that an individual's decision is like a calculus equation, it has a set response depending on the constants that went into them and anything variable like choice cannot be involved otherwise the outcome can't be known.

well, most equations I know of have variables. God may know what the equation equals to when we substitute any value in said variables.

The other way of looking at the problem with free will from a theistic or even secular point of view is that each choice ultimately boils down to thoughts that essentially evaluate the probabilities of outcomes given the information available and emotions which give 'weight' to each of those outcomes.

though emotions can be manipulated at will with the proper practice. that our free will is limited by our perception is very clear to everyone but that itself does not reject free will. some people have more light and some have less but we are accountable in our own spheres of responsibility.

Given that the evaluative ability of the brain is not a choice (you can argue that one makes a 'choice' that later can cause damage to one's evaluative ability and that is true but if we go far enough back in a person's 'choices' they are using the evaluative tool they were endowed with-including the 'choice' that led to that damage) and that emotions are not really a choice either it is unclear how something like free will could enter to any part of that equation.

emotions, to a degree, are product of choices. for example, if I want to get mad right now I can search in my brain experiences that made me mad and start 'putting gas on the fire.' If in a hard situation I need some comfort I can choose to recall certain teachings and doctrines that I know that may help.

so, yes, we are limited by the evaluative ability of the brain (though this can very well increase with practice) but we have choices within that sphere of responsibility.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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

Your thoughts?

I can't remember the book...I think it is "Thy will be done' by Neal A Maxwell. He does a great job of explaining this. Maybe someone could find and post.

[Uncertain]

I find the argument compelling that libertarian free will and absolute foreknowledge are logically incompatible. I think Ba81 et al make a good case. I personally don't see why absolute foreknowledge is such a virtue that it must be retained at all costs. Assuming God does not have perfect foreknowledge who cares? God can still fulfill any and all of his promises and obligations so whats the big deal? What does it matter if God doesn't know with perfect foreknowledge what I will do a year from now?

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Jason]

I find the argument compelling that libertarian free will and absolute foreknowledge are logically incompatible. I think Ba81 et al make a good case. I personally don't see why absolute foreknowledge is such a virtue that it must be retained at all costs. Assuming God does not have perfect foreknowledge who cares? God can still fulfill any and all of his promises and obligations so whats the big deal? What does it matter if God doesn't know with perfect foreknowledge what I will do a year from now?

All the Best,

Uncertain

How can God ensure that everyone has a fair test and receives what they need in mortality if He cannot predict our choices?

[nicolasconnault]

You're exactly right. It's obvious, I'm sure, but I happen to be a libertarian about free will. I don't think the view is unproblematic. The problem a lot of people have is that they want libertarian free will and divine foreknowledge, but don't think those views together entail a contradiction, when, in fact, they do.

Just because I will never do something doesn't mean I cannot do it. The same is true about God: we know he will never lie, but he certainly has the power to do so. Even though my choices are all known to him in advance, I still have to think about them, and I am responsible for them and for their consequences. God didn't choose any of my choices and he certainly doesn't agree with many of them. I'm glad that he will not be held accountable for them! To me, these simple facts define my free agency. I am totally comfortable with that definition, and with the idea that God knows everything perfectly, including the choices I will make out of my free will.

I am much less comfortable when I venture into the realm of a god who doesn't know everything. What exactly doesn't he know? How do you know what he doesn't know? Have you thought about all the consequences of such thinking?

[nicolasconnault]

I find the argument compelling that libertarian free will and absolute foreknowledge are logically incompatible. I think Ba81 et al make a good case. I personally don't see why absolute foreknowledge is such a virtue that it must be retained at all costs. Assuming God does not have perfect foreknowledge who cares? God can still fulfill any and all of his promises and obligations so whats the big deal? What does it matter if God doesn't know with perfect foreknowledge what I will do a year from now?

All the Best,

Uncertain

It matters a lot to me, because of two reasons:

1. It completely contradicts the scriptures
2. It completely alters one's confidence in God. What doesn't he know? Why doesn't he know it? How can I trust any prophecy, any personal amswers to my prayers?

[nicolasconnault]

Another point to consider, if you follow the philosophical trend of this thread: does God know everything that is currently happening? Doesn't a positive answer presuppose an infinite knowledge as well? What about omniscience of everything that has ever happened or existed? Can God forget?

[Luigi]

well, most equations I know of have variables. God may know what the equation equals to when we substitute any value in said variables.

If it is a variable it is unknown-otherwise it a constant. If God knows the outcome he also knows the constant.

though emotions can be manipulated at will with the proper practice. that our free will is limited by our perception is very clear to everyone but that itself does not reject free will. some people have more light and some have less but we are accountable in our own spheres of responsibility.

But what would be the motivation for manipulating your emotions? Wouldn't it be another emotion? Without emotion you wouldn't move, you wouldn't do anything because nothing would matter to you. Consequently any decision is a direct result of the emotions and thoughts which preceded it which come as a response to one's environment and yes the decisions previously made but those were also contingent on the emotions and thoughts resulting from the environment. The short argument is essentially this: decision can't occur independent of emotion-otherwise what motivates it?

emotions, to a degree, are product of choices. for example, if I want to get mad right now I can search in my brain experiences that made me mad and start 'putting gas on the fire.' If in a hard situation I need some comfort I can choose to recall certain teachings and doctrines that I know that may help.

so, yes, we are limited by the evaluative ability of the brain (though this can very well increase with practice) but we have choices within that sphere of responsibility.

Emotions are a product of our choices and our environment but the preceding choices were all based on the emotions resulting from the environment and previous choices and on and on until you start with the very first decision that a person makes which was based on emotions that were a pure response to one's environment as well as the perceived emotional benefits of the choice made and the individual in that first choice didn't choose the environment or the programmed emotional responses and therefore did not make the choice at all.

[Mordecai]

I'm not sure if that was the point of Minority Report. Pre-Crime was ultimately shut down because it was proven that the pre-cogs could be wrong (when someone chose to commit suicide rather than a murder). Can God be wrong in one of His predictions?

It wasn't the point of the movie, but the pre-cogs were clearly wrong, because he was warned ahead of time about what they saw in a possible future. At the moment he's about to commit murder, the pre-cog is there to tell him, "You have a choice." My interpretation was that the influence of the pre-cog was what helped him make a better choice. What I'm saying is, he was a slave to fate until he was influenced by one with greater knowledge than him, the pre-cog. It was that knowledge that made him free. This is more true in The Matrix, if we're going to stay on movie themes.

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

[Mordecai]

Emotions are a product of our choices and our environment but the preceding choices were all based on the emotions resulting from the environment and previous choices and on and on until you start with the very first decision that a person makes which was based on emotions that were a pure response to one's environment as well as the perceived emotional benefits of the choice made and the individual in that first choice didn't choose the environment or the programmed emotional responses and therefore did not make the choice at all.

thoughts>>feelings>>actions>>environment>>thoughts (about your environment)>>feelings>>....

[nicolasconnault]

If God doesn't know (cannot know!) what choices we will make in advance, then he cannot know how the choices of others will influence us. This vastly reduces his predictive power, or vastly increases his need to "intervene" in order to achieve his purposes. Indeed, it would require him to intervene every second of every day!

Say for example that he has a great purpose for me, and wants me to help someone learn about the Gospel, change their life and be baptised because of my testimony. That is part of his plans (if, indeed, he has enough knowledge to even formulate one). Unfortunately, he didn't know that, tomorrow, I would be hit by a car driven by a man who chose to drink. I suppose that if he still wants his plan to come to fruition, he'll have to intervene and somehow prevent the accident. Otherwise he'll have to change his plan.

This kind of thinking spirals down into a complete mess, with a God who is either incapable of formulating any coherent plan to achieve his purposes, or who is required to intervene constantly to maintain his plans. Whichever of these two options you choose, it still presupposes that God is omniscient about the "NOW", which is a point yet to be debated in this thread, but a point which, I think, is crucial.

[callmenerd]

That's actually a clever way to talk about God's knowledge in terms of possibilities, but does Bill, the host, know which door Jonnie will choose? That's the question we're grappling with.

Right, I was insinuating that He wouldn't know. But, I'm kinda thinking that as 4th dimensional beings we're limited to understanding things that go beyond time. Especially a concept like choice. My original reasoning was that there'd just be infinite copies of ourself that God would know all at once. So which one we became, God would know all along because He knew every single one of them, but now that's feeling too impersonal.

There is error in this Topic, Free will and omniscience are not antagonistic, but I will be silent until I know enough to explain. Knowing that a fish will migrate back to where it was born does not make it happen.

[Luigi]

thoughts>>feelings>>actions>>environment>>thoughts (about your environment)>>feelings>>....

I assume you're arguing we 'choose' our thoughts but the choice of entertaining thoughts has the same logical precedent of all other decisions, ie the pull of predetermined emotions.

[Vance]

I am not omniscient!

Yet, if I place two different kinds of ice cream in front of my child, I know which one he will choose.

Does my foreknowledge interfere with his agency? Does it eliminate his agency? Is it not he who makes the choice?

Edited to add: If I were omniscient, does it change anything here? If so, how?