There is no free will if God is omniscient

[elguanteloko]

In order to get a solution, ie know the outcome, He can't plug in variables He would have to plug in constants, ie predetermined values.

as I mentioned in another post, those values are determined by each one of us, not by Him. the fact that God knows already what you are going to choose does not, in any way, constrain your freedom to choose. His knowledge of your future choices are determined by YOU, not by Him; He just knows them.

That doesn't make any sense. You are saying there is some ambiguous moment where there is no emotion, just free will, but without emotion then outcomes become irrelevant.

the engine of all our actions is the pursuit of pleasure. there is not a single moment when we are not being moved by that force. that is the only impulse (emotion) that I will agree with that does not change and that is all-pervasive and ever present in our beings. the problems arise in trying to determine which actions that will produce which feelings will bring us the most pleasure (from all the kinds of pleasure that exists and all the levels of intensity of pleasure). when we come to realize this process we can activate mechanisms that increases the gap between the feelings that have been produced involuntarily in us by stimuli and our reactions primarily produced by our normal tendencies. so, there is no emotion that is pushing us involuntarily all the way through the thinking process other than the pursuit of pleasure but we can empty ourselves of all feelings and emotions (instead of that one) and make our minds so our actions bring certain types of pleasures.... I hope I was somewhat clear.

You may set emotion aside in a sort of way to evaluate the potential outcomes but even in choosing to do that there has to be an emotional motivation to do so.

the only impulse we can never get rid of is our tendency to seek pleasure... but that in itself does not determine much. we can even make stuff up voluntarily to obligate ourselves to do some crazy actions.

Certainly as I already mentioned the brain's ability to process multiple solutions given the available information can change from one persont to another but the relative desire for each outcome is still dependent on emotions.

we all have different levels of judgment but with the universal of seeking the most pleasure. it does not matter how much we differ in our conscious judgments, we are all responsible for the little or much light that we have received.

So free will is some moment where we make selections without any emotional impulse? Why make a decision without an emotional impulse? Without emotions there is no distinction between eternal bliss and eternal torture or even oblivion for that matter.

if by emotional impulse you mean any other impulse other than the seeking of pleasure, then no.

[Brade]

I don't know any church that accepts that as doctrine. In fact, I can't see how you could reconcile Bible or book of Mormon accounts with this idea. My own personal experiences with God run contrary to this idea also. However, if you have anything else than pure reasoning to back up that belief, I'd be very interested in knowing it. I'm very grateful for the scriptures, prophets and personal revelation, which are gifts from God to help us understand his divine character, where human reason fails.

Blake Ostler has made, what I believe is, a compelling case for the view that we have libertarian free will and that, therefore, God does not know (with certainty; is there any other kind of knowledge than certain knowledge?) what free agents will do in the future. Part of his account is to show how such a view can be reconciled with scripture (LDS scripture specifically). In fact, his project goes a bit further since he argues, if I remember right, that LDS scripture is actually more consistent with the libertarian account than with any alternatives (even though the alternatives are more widely accepted among the membership of the Church). It's important that you don't make unjustified assumptions about what that last claim entails. It doesn't, for example, entail that God can't have a really really really good idea about what you will or will not do. I'm sure God is quite confident that I won't murder somebody tomorrow, even though as a free agent I could.

[elguanteloko]

Ok, look, let's start here. Just answer 'yes' or 'no'. Has it always been possible for God to know the future?

no since there was a time when He was not God... but for our times, yes. He in fact knows all past, present, and future.

[Brade]

no since there was a time when He was not God... but for our times, yes. He in fact knows all past, present, and future.

Well, let me rephrase the question. Has it always been possible for somebody with the right God-like attributes to know the future with certainty?

[handys003]

You're not reading my posts. I made it clear to you that God knowing something doesn't mean He wants it to happen! Why do you keep making this assertion? Do you think that God didn't know that Christ would be crucified? Do you think that he didn't know Judas would betray him?

I read your posts. When you assert that God has prophesied then it does mean he wants it to happen. The crucification of Christ was planned as was Judas betrayal. These are the big picture things that are planned in the pre mortal life to happen. If you want to include that as all knowing then I'm fine with it. What I'm not fine is the preset notion that some maintain, and maybe not you, but those missionaries who assert God knows everything right down to what time your going to sleep that day, or as the example I gave before. God knew of Adams fall would occur, but he planned it by planting the tree of knowledge or why would he do it. He hopes it goes that way because he surmises that the habit of men like himself before would do such when it happens. It could have been another several 100 years earth time, but it would happen because he knows the hearts (habits) of men. He plants the things to cause. Such as our natural world and what causes earthquakes. It's not because God determines when it will happen, but it will happen when it does because he knows the laws he built concerning it will go off. However he does not know the exact time. It is irrelevant to him. It's only the big goals he is all-knowing about, and not the little things he has to know. These are necessary to all his exaltation as to ours. That is what I believe him to be as all-knowing, and not the minute details of every souls life as maintained by others. This is what I'm trying to put across. All knowing of every minute detail of each and every person interferes with free will and is therefore an illusion.

[elguanteloko]

Well, let me rephrase the question. Has it always been possible for somebody with the right God-like attributes to know the future with certainty?

yes.

[handys003]

yes.

That's assuming that he has no God before him.

[elguanteloko]

That's assuming that he has no God before him.

re-read the question. it is very specific about 'somebody' who has the 'right God-like attributes' that enables him to know the future with certainty. that may be anyone, either the God I worship or any other God.

[nicolasconnault]

Blake Ostler has made, what I believe is, a compelling case for the view that we have libertarian free will and that, therefore, God does not know (with certainty; is there any other kind of knowledge than certain knowledge?) what free agents will do in the future. Part of his account is to show how such a view can be reconciled with scripture (LDS scripture specifically). In fact, his project goes a bit further since he argues, if I remember right, that LDS scripture is actually more consistent with the libertarian account than with any alternatives (even though the alternatives are more widely accepted among the membership of the Church). It's important that you don't make unjustified assumptions about what that last claim entails. It doesn't, for example, entail that God can't have a really really really good idea about what you will or will not do. I'm sure God is quite confident that I won't murder somebody tomorrow, even though as a free agent I could.

I haven't read the full text of Ostler's treatise on the topic, but I have read a summary. There is logic in his arguments, but his reasoning makes certain assumptions which I reject. One of them is that what doesn't make sense to us cannot possibly make sense. Another is that God's way of feeling emotions is exactly similar to the way we feel emotions (he uses that argument to conclude that God can be surprised).

In essence I go along with Joseph Smith's statement:

Without the knowledge of all things God would not be able to save any portion of his creatures; for it is by reason of the knowledge which he has of all things, from the beginning to the end, that enables him to give that understanding to his creatures by which they are made partakers of eternal life; and if it were not for the idea existing in the minds of men that God had all knowledge it would be impossible for them to exercise faith in him.

I utterly reject the philosophical argument that God doesn't know what choices we will make. I can't imagine a God that guesses, that sometimes makes mistakes (probabilities entail mistakes, don't they?), that makes wrong judgments about his children ("WOW, I didn't expect Abraham to go as far as to obey my command to kill his son! He really fears me, I'd better send an angel to stop him!").

This is a caricature of a god, and certainly not one which I feel inclined to worship. I'm surprised that Blake Ostler could have got himself into such thinking, it doesn't encourage me to study much more of his philosophies.

[nicolasconnault]

I read your posts. When you assert that God has prophesied then it does mean he wants it to happen. The crucification of Christ was planned as was Judas betrayal. These are the big picture things that are planned in the pre mortal life to happen. If you want to include that as all knowing then I'm fine with it. What I'm not fine is the preset notion that some maintain, and maybe not you, but those missionaries who assert God knows everything right down to what time your going to sleep that day, or as the example I gave before. God knew of Adams fall would occur, but he planned it by planting the tree of knowledge or why would he do it. He hopes it goes that way because he surmises that the habit of men like himself before would do such when it happens. It could have been another several 100 years earth time, but it would happen because he knows the hearts (habits) of men. He plants the things to cause. Such as our natural world and what causes earthquakes. It's not because God determines when it will happen, but it will happen when it does because he knows the laws he built concerning it will go off. However he does not know the exact time. It is irrelevant to him. It's only the big goals he is all-knowing about, and not the little things he has to know. These are necessary to all his exaltation as to ours. That is what I believe him to be as all-knowing, and not the minute details of every souls life as maintained by others. This is what I'm trying to put across. All knowing of every minute detail of each and every person interferes with free will and is therefore an illusion.

Nice philosophy, but you cannot produce any scripture to back it up.

[Brade]

yes.

Ok, that's a good starting off point. Now, 1,000,000 years ago, could somebody with the right God-like attributes know that you would type "yes." on the MADB forums on January 5th 2010 at 9:26pm (your time)?

[elguanteloko]

Ok, that's a good starting off point. Now, 1,000,000 years ago, could somebody with the right God-like attributes know that you would type "yes." on the MADB forums on January 5th 2010 at 9:26pm (your time)?

yes.

[handys003]

re-read the question. it is very specific about 'somebody' who has the 'right God-like attributes' that enables him to know the future with certainty. that may be anyone, either the God I worship or any other God.

The comment was made from regarding the days of an old post before you joined that I was reflecting on the Big Question. Who made God?

[Brade]

I haven't read the full text of Ostler's treatise on the topic, but I have read a summary. There is logic in his arguments, but his reasoning makes certain assumptions which I reject. One of them is that what doesn't make sense to us cannot possibly make sense. Another is that God's way of feeling emotions is exactly similar to the way we feel emotions (he uses that argument to conclude that God can be surprised).

I'm pretty certain that none of Ostlers arguments depend on the premise that what doesn't make sense to us cannot possibly make sense. His arguments depend on basic rules of inference like the following:

Premise 1: If X is a cat, then X is a mammal.

Premise 2: X is a cat

Conclusion: Therefore, X is a mammal.

By those basic rules he derives contradictions, and his aim is to avoid contradictions. If something is a contradiction then it can't possibly make sense in the sense of it not being a contradiction. So, his arguments do depend on the premise that contradictions ought to be avoided and that if a set of premises derives a contradiction, either the logic is wrong (which it isn't in Ostler's case) or one or more of the premises is false. He, of course, derives a contradiction by assuming that God is omniscient and that humans have free will in the sense of having the ability to do otherwise. That just means that one of those assumptions is false. He thinks it's the first (and I agree).

I utterly reject the philosophical argument that God doesn't know what choices we will make.

That's perfectly fine, and there may be good reasons to reject the claim that God doesn't know the outcome of future choices. However, unless you can find a problem with the argument that shows that omniscience and libertarian free will entail a contradiction, what you can't do is claim that both of those views are true at the same time. One of them is false. If you think that God is omniscient in the way we've been discussing, then that means that we don't have free will in the sense of being able to do otherwise. We may have free will in some other sense, but not that one (there are, by the way, other notions of free will that are compatible with omniscience). Or, if you think that we have free will in the libertarian sense, then that just means that God cannot be omniscient in the sense of having knowledge about what agents will do in the future.

[handys003]

Nice philosophy, but you cannot produce any scripture to back it up.

Show me Omniscient or all-knowing in scriptures.

[Brade]

yes.

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.

If people with the sorts of God-like attributes we're talking about cannot be mistaken about what they know to be true, then somebody with the right God-like attributes who knew, 1,000,000 years ago, that you would type "yes." on the MADB forums on January 5th 2010 at 9:26pm (your time) could not be wrong.

Now, if free will is the ability to do otherwise, and you're typing "yes." on the MADB forums on January 5th 2010 at 9:26pm (your time) was a free choice you made, then you could have not typed anything at all at that moment, or you could have typed something else, like "Crumpa!".

But, since it was already a fact 1,000,000 years ago

[Brade]

Show me Omniscient or all-knowing in scriptures.

I think there are plenty of examples of scriptures talking about God knowing all things. The problem is that those scriptures are consistent with God knowing all things that can be known (the libertarian position), and, on the other hand, that God knows all things including everything everyone will do in the future. The scriptures simply are not philosophically precise.

[Deborah]

Show me Omniscient or all-knowing in scriptures.

Seriously? There are multiple scriptural references to God knowing all things (and which support my theory of past, present and future on a continuum):

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

D&C 38: 2 The same which knoweth all things, for all things are present before mine eyes;

D&C 130: 7 But they reside in the presence of God, on a globe like a sea of glass and fire, where all things for their glory are manifest, past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord.

Also so the words of Ezra T Benson:

[nicolasconnault]

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.

If people with the sorts of God-like attributes we're talking about cannot be mistaken about what they know to be true, then somebody with the right God-like attributes who knew, 1,000,000 years ago, that you would type "yes." on the MADB forums on January 5th 2010 at 9:26pm (your time) could not be wrong.

Now, if free will is the ability to do otherwise, and you're typing "yes." on the MADB forums on January 5th 2010 at 9:26pm (your time) was a free choice you made, then you could have not typed anything at all at that moment, or you could have typed something else, like "Crumpa!".

But, since it was already a fact 1,000,000 years ago

[elguanteloko]

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.

a fact not yet done, but yes. it existed in the mind of such being.

If people with the sorts of God-like attributes we're talking about cannot be mistaken about what they know to be true, then somebody with the right God-like attributes who knew, 1,000,000 years ago, that you would type "yes." on the MADB forums on January 5th 2010 at 9:26pm (your time) could not be wrong.

correct. such being could not be wrong.

Now, if free will is the ability to do otherwise, and you're typing "yes." on the MADB forums on January 5th 2010 at 9:26pm (your time) was a free choice you made, then you could have not typed anything at all at that moment, or you could have typed something else, like "Crumpa!".

lol, that was an unexpected word. but no, that is not correct. the knowledge of God about what we will do is not dependent on Him (He does not determine what the action will be, He just passively knows them), instead the action is dependent on us and our own judgments. in other words, the knowledge He has about our actions depend on us and not on Him.

But, since it was already a fact 1,000,000 years ago

[Brade]

You define free will as "the ability to do something else than what God knows you will do".

No, that's not how I define "free will".

I think that, instead, "Free will" is the ability to choose between various choices available to you at a given time.

That's how I define "free will".

Whether or not God knows which one you will make, doesn't change the fact that you have to make the mental effort and cognitive steps to actually choose. It's not about us not being able to choose otherwise, but simply that we will not choose otherwise, given the choice. In other words, "we will not choose what we will not choose". Sounds pretty stupid, but that's an undeniable fact. It doesn't negate our ability to choose, our need to choose, or our responsibility for our choices.

What you've said here isn't the same as what you said when you said that "'Free will' is the ability to choose between various choices available to you at a given time." You're right that even if God knows what you will do, that doesn't mean that you won't go through mental efforts and cognitive steps of any kind. It does, however, mean that you cannot do other than what God knows you will do. Thus, if God knew 10,000 years ago that you would type the post that you just typed a few minutes ago, then you were not free to not type the post that you just typed a few minutes ago. Saying that "if God knows what you will do, that doesn't mean that you won't go through mental efforts and cognitive steps of any kind" doesn't mean that you have the ability to do otherwise; it just means that when you make choices your choices are preceded by mental efforts, and that can be true even if you're not free to do other than what God knows you will do.

Really, the tone of you're last post sounds very much like A.J. Ayer's view of free will. Ayer defends a view of free will that does not contain the notion of having the ability to do otherwise. Ayer's sort of free will is, in fact, consistent with divine foreknowledge. I can send you the paper if you're interested. You might find it helpful. In short, it sounds like you don't believe in libertarian free will

[nicolasconnault]

No, that's not how I define "free will".

That's how I define "free will".

What you've said here isn't the same as what you said when you said that "'Free will' is the ability to choose between various choices available to you at a given time." You're right that even if God knows what you will do, that doesn't mean that you won't go through mental efforts and cognitive steps of any kind. It does, however, mean that you cannot do other than what God knows you will do. Thus, if God knew 10,000 years ago that you would type the post that you just typed a few minutes ago, then you were not free to not type the post that you just typed a few minutes ago. Saying that "if God knows what you will do, that doesn't mean that you won't go through mental efforts and cognitive steps of any kind" doesn't mean that you have the ability to do otherwise; it just means that when you make choices your choices are preceded by mental efforts, and that can be true even if you're not free to do other than what God knows you will do.

Really, the tone of you're last post sounds very much like A.J. Ayer's view of free will. Ayer defends a view of free will that does not contain the notion of having the ability to do otherwise. Ayer's sort of free will is, in fact, consistent with divine foreknowledge. I can send you the paper if you're interested. You might find it helpful. In short, it sounds like you don't believe in libertarian free will

[Brade]

a fact not yet done, but yes. it existed in the mind of such being.

What do you mean by "a fact not yet done." When I posted my comment a few minutes ago, it was already a fact about the past that you typed "yes." on the MADB forums on January 5th 2010 at 9:26pm (your time). I don't see how that fact is not yet done.

nope. the fact that He knows everything does not determine anything in itself. His knowledge about the actions I will do tomorrow do not limit my ability to do whatever I want. whatever is on our minds, or in God's mind in this case, does not have any effect on reality directly.

I agree that the fact that God knows everything, if that is in fact true, does not determine anything in itself. Nothing I've said entails that, and if you think something I've said does entail that, then I'm afraid you don't understand what I've said.

Just look at what you're saying here. You're saying that God knows today what you will do tomorrow. If God can never be wrong, then that means that what he knows to be true must necessarily be true. If God can't be wrong about what you'll do tomorrow, how can you do something other than what God knows you will do?

I was able to type anything I wanted but He simply knew what I was going to type.

I mean, really, think about what you're saying here. You're saying that God knew you would type "yes." but you could have typed "Crumpa!". If you had typed "Crumpa!", and God knew you would type "yes.", then what does that mean about what God knew other than that God would have to have been mistaken. Certainly you don't believe God can be mistaken in what he knows.

His knowledge does not determine anything.

Again, I've never advocated that view. If you re-read several of my posts from the very beginning of this thread, you'll see that on several occasions I've been explicit about the fact that I don't think God's knowledge determines anything.

in the past it was a fact that God had the idea that I was going to type 'yes' but nothing had been done in reality yet other than this idea. when this day became a reality I took the choice I wanted and I saw best fitted the question... God's knowledge is as independent from my decision as you can imagine. just as my thoughts and knowledge do not affect your free will (no matter how perfect that knowledge is), God's knowledge does not affect anyone's free will.

Again, I'm not arguing that God's knowledge affects anyone's free will. I am arguing that if God knows the future in the way we're discussing, then that entails that people aren't free in the way we're discussing. That simply does not entail that I think God's knowledge is causing people to loose their freedom.

[nicolasconnault]

I suppose my understanding of free will is: "Sufficient freedom to be able to achieve exaltation through the exercise of faith in Christ".

[Brade]

You can get Ayer's paper by following the link below:

web.nmsu.edu/~Jvessel/Philosophy/Freedom%20and%20Necessity.pdf

Here's a bit of background. In the philosophy of free will there are two brands of free will. One brand says that free will is the ability to do otherwise. Another way of putting this is to say that free will is being able to choose among alternatives. Another brand of free will says that free will is just when an agent does something without being coerced to do it (like at gunpoint, or as the result of some mental deficiency). This second brand of free will denies that free will has anything to do with the ability to do otherwise.

The advantage of the second brand of free will is that it's compatible with divine foreknowledge. In other words, when combined with the theory of divine foreknowledge, no contradictions arise. That isn't so with the first brand of free will. In combination with the theory of divine foreknowledge the first brand yields contradictions. However, many people, including myself, find the first brand attractive because it seems to harmonize better with pre-philosophical intuitions about the nature of free will.

The free will debate has become quite complicated and technical these days; which is a bit unfortunate since it makes the debate less accessible to those without philosophical training. But, I think Ayers paper is a really good jumping off point. The other benefit of starting with Ayers paper is that it's a view that is consistent with divine foreknowledge