There is no free will if God is omniscient

[nicolasconnault]

Hi Nicolasconnault,

I completely contradicts a particular interpretation of scripture. Whether that interpretation is the only reasonable one remains to be seen.

God know all it is possible to know. It just so happens it is not possible to know with perfect accuracy the freely chosen actions of free agents. Also God has the power to fulfill any promise he makes to you. So if God answers your prays and promises you a new job God has the power to make sure with 100% confidence you will get a new job.

All the Best,

Uncertain

So the scripture that says "God knoweth all things, and there is not anything save he knows it" can be interpreted as saying he doesn't know all things. That's a bit of a stretch I think.

Your example with the job has a problem: what if someone does something which God hadn't predicted, which prevents me from getting the job (e.g. the employer makes a wrong turn while driving and kills himself), will God need to intervene and do something miraculous to make sure I get my job?

The 99.9% accuracy (sorry if I snigger a little bit at this arbitrary figure), still entails that God is able to make mistakes. I cannot accept that.

[Uncertain]

So the scripture that says "God knoweth all things, and there is not anything save he knows it" can be interpreted as saying he doesn't know all things. That's a bit of a stretch I think.

God does know all things there are to know. It just so happens the free will actions of intelligent agents can't be known.

Your example with the job has a problem: what if someone does something which God hadn't predicted, which prevents me from getting the job (e.g. the employer makes a wrong turn while driving and kills himself), will God need to intervene and do something miraculous to make sure I get my job?

The 99.9% accuracy (sorry if I snigger a little bit at this arbitrary figure), still entails that God is able to make mistakes. I cannot accept that.

Well God using his ultimate power could protect your employer in some way or God could ensure the replacement for your employer is going to offer you a job. The point is God being God has the power to back up any promises he makes. And yes the 99.9% accuracy figure was completely arbitrary I was simply using it to make a point. I have no idea how accurately God can predict our actions I imagine it is quite high whether it is 99.9% who knows.

[wenglund]

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.

This is like suggesting that if the Russian government decides which children would grow up to become doctors, what would be the point of educating them? Since they know which children will become doctors, why not just give those children doctorates and let them begin performing open heart surgery?

You see, we come to earth to grow and develop. That God may know beforehand the point to which we each will develop during mortality, does not circumvent our having to undergo the development. In fact, God has declared: "There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings [including growth towards becoming like Christ] are predicated. And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated." (D&C 130:20-21)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

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.

I don't see how this distinction makes a difference. If the facts about the past don't negate free will ("in the sense of not being able to do otherwise"), then neither do facts about the future.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Deborah]

I do not understand how God having foreknowledge has anything to do with the choices we make. Our agency isn't to tell us what God will do but to tell us what we will do. God may know the outcome, but we don't. So how does his knowing the outcome change what we do since we don't know? Using our agency is for our benefit to gain experience, to learn to choose the good from the evil and to learn the attributes of God, such as love, compassion, patience, etc.

[Uncertain]

This is like suggesting that if the Russian government decides which children would grow up to become doctors, what would be the point of educating them? Since they know which children will become doctors, why not just give those children doctorates and let them begin performing open heart surgery?

You see, we come to earth to grow and develop. That God may know beforehand the point to which we each will develop during mortality, does not circumvent our having to undergo the development. In fact, God has declared: "There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings [including growth towards becoming like Christ] are predicated. And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated." (D&C 130:20-21)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hi Wade,

I am not sure I entirely agree. In most cases I think your point holds but not in all cases. For example take Mark 14:17-21

17 And in the evening he cometh with the twelve.

18 And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with me shall betray me.

19 And they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him one by one, Is it I? and another said, Is it I?

20 And he answered and said unto them, It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish.

21 The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.

Christ specifically states it would be better for that man if "he had never been born". Take those condemned for eternity to Outer Darkness sure they gained knowledge and developed in mortality. But what they lost was more than what they gained they are after all doomed to eternal punishment. If there truly are those who it is better they have "never been born" and if God knows with 100% accuracy who they are then it would be a cruel act to condemn them to earth life. Because they are worse off having experienced earth life than if they had not. And condemning someone to an experience you know will be more harmful than beneficial is not the act of a loving God.

[Deborah]

then it would be a cruel act to condemn them to earth life. Because they are worse off having experienced earth life than if they had not. And condemning someone to an experience you know will be more harmful than beneficial is not the act of a loving God.

But had they not come to earth they would still be in the same position, even worse, because those in Perdition with a body will rule over those without. Furthermore how do you say to someone "Well, Bill, I know you are going to mess up so I'm just going to cast you out now." Can you imagine how unjust Bill would think God is. A just God will let that person learn for himself. In the end we all judge ourselves anyway by every choice we make.

[wenglund]

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?

These questions become all the more profound when considering that both the past and the future may be the present with God.

I believe the supposed problem of free will and foreknowledge exists only because of our finite and relatively ignorant grasp of things like time.

The good news is that since we aren't in a position to solve the supposed problem, we really don't need to try to solve it--assuming there is even a problem to solve. It is sufficinet for us to figure out what is required for us to progress unto Christ.

My point being, if people lose faith in the restored gospel or abandon useful gospel precepts due to the supposed problem, then they really don't get the gospel, and this ultimately to their disbenefit.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Uncertain]

But had they not come to earth they would still be in the same position, even worse, because those in Perdition with a body will rule over those without. Furthermore how do you say to someone "Well, Bill, I know you are going to mess up so I'm just going to cast you out now." Can you imagine how unjust Bill would think God is. A just God will let that person learn for himself. In the end we all judge ourselves anyway by every choice we make.

Hi Deborah,

So it appears you believe everyone even sons of perdition are better off for having come to this earth. How do you interpret the scripture I gave above? The straightforward reading is that there are some who are better off if they had never been born. If they were truly better off never having being born and God knows this than it is cruel for God to condemn them to that experience. Personally if I were Bill and God came to me and said look I know you really want to go to earth but I happen to know with perfect accuracy if you do you will be worse off then if you don't I would be extremely grateful to God. After all he is God and can predict with 100% accuracy what will happen how can I possible complain he is being unfair? In fact he is being very fair and is looking after my best interests.

[Brade]

I don't see how this distinction makes a difference. If the facts about the past don't negate free will ("in the sense of not being able to do otherwise"), then neither do facts about the future.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You'll have to unpack that a little more for me to follow. Here's a fact about the past: I ate chicken yesterday. In terms of what I'll do today, that fact doesn't entail that the things I undertake to do today are not done freely. So, your right? Facts about the past don't necessarily negate free will. But, why should I think that, because of that, facts about the future don't negate free will (if my understanding of free will is being able to choose from alternatives)? Facts about the future are different sorts of facts. Facts about the past describe what has occurred. Facts about the future describe what will occur. If it's a fact, now, that I will not eat chicken today, then, it is not within my power to eat chicken today (I cannot eat chicken today).

But, elguanteloko (and you?) wants to say, "Oh, no, but you can eat chicken today". There's a sense in which he's right. There is a possible world where I eat chicken today. But, guess what, those possible worlds (in which I do eat chicken today) are not worlds in which it's true that I won't eat chicken (by definition). And notice, the story dictates that we should only consider a subset of possible worlds: ones in which it's a fact that I won't eat chicken today. The fact that there are possible worlds in which I eat chicken today is irrelevant since, by our story, we've restricted ourselves to possible worlds in which I won't eat chicken today.

elguanteloko is making the mistake of thinking that just any possible world is relevant to what I can and can't do in the actual world, and thus, if there's a possible world in which I eat chicken today, then, well, I can eat chicken today. But if, in the actual world, God knows I won't eat chicken, what relevance do those other possible worlds have? None. By virtue of what God knows, the only relevant possible worlds, to him and me, and whether I can eat chicken or not, are possible worlds in which I don't eat chicken. Thus, I don't eat chicken. Furthermore, I cannot eat chicken, unless the facts of the actual world are different. But, as the story goes, they're not. There just isn't any way around this.

So, you see, if you tell a story about how God knows what you will do in the future, you are, by that fact, restricting your future to a subset of possible worlds

[Brade]

My point being, if people lose faith in the restored gospel or abandon useful gospel precepts due to the supposed problem, then they really don't get the gospel, and this ultimately to their disbenefit.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I agree with what you've said here. I don't think how one decides the free will problem ought to be a reason to lose faith in the restored gospel. In fact, I think that if somebody loses faith because of the free will problem, then they've misunderstood the problem and the gospel.

I know it probably appears, from my posts, that I'm extremely concerned about the problem of free will in the religious context. I'm not. It just so happens that that's how the free will problem comes up on these forums. The problem of free will is interesting to me because, ultimately, it involves theories of time and causation, among other things, and how we decide those deeper problems has relevance to areas like physics and computer science. Honestly, I think the free will problem in the religious context brings with it too much baggage and just needlessly adds a layer of complexity to the problem. I prefer studying and discussing the problem outside of the religious context, but that just doesn't happen around here and this forum probably isn't even the right setting for those sorts of discussions anyway.

[Luigi]

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.

Then there must be a constraint on that choice such that the outcome will always be known.

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.

If I understand you correctly you seem to suggest we can empty our minds of all but the pursuit of pleasure and then evaluate how to map our course so as to best fulfill that pursuit. However, even there you are being pulled by the pursuit of pleasure and what gives you pleasure is not determined by you but by your programming. There is absolutely nothing that you choose in that process-it is all handed to you.

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.

Yes, but you would always do that for a reason and your motivations would ultimately come from predetermined emotional responses.

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.

We do all have different levels of judgement or what I would call the ability to determine the reliability of certain paths in the pursuit of pleasure but even that is predetermined by our inherent intelligence due to genetics and cultivated by our 'choices' which as I mentioned are driven by emotional impulses beyond our control.

[wenglund]

Hi Wade,

I am not sure I entirely agree. In most cases I think your point holds but not in all cases. For example take Mark 14:17-21

17 And in the evening he cometh with the twelve.

18 And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with me shall betray me.

19 And they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him one by one, Is it I? and another said, Is it I?

20 And he answered and said unto them, It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish.

21 The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.

Christ specifically states it would be better for that man if "he had never been born". Take those condemned for eternity to Outer Darkness sure they gained knowledge and developed in mortality. But what they lost was more than what they gained they are after all doomed to eternal punishment. If there truly are those who it is better they have "never been born" and if God knows with 100% accuracy who they are then it would be a cruel act to condemn them to earth life. Because they are worse off having experienced earth life than if they had not. And condemning someone to an experience you know will be more harmful than beneficial is not the act of a loving God.

I view the bolded sentence above as an idiomatic way for Christ to say: "such actions are very wrong and have terrible consequences", and not as a deep philosophical pronouncement regarding the kinds of human actions that may supercede the value of being born into mortality. Given my understanding of the purpose of mortality, entrance into mortality is always a plus regardless of what actions we may CHOOSE while here. But, to each their own.

Fortunately, whatever the case may be, it is to our benefit to make choices during our lives that make our having been born into mortality most worthwhile, meaningful, and of great value.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Uncertain]

Hi Wade,

I am not sure I entirely agree. In most cases I think your point holds but not in all cases. For example take Mark 14:17-21

17 And in the evening he cometh with the twelve.

18 And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with me shall betray me.

19 And they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him one by one, Is it I? and another said, Is it I?

20 And he answered and said unto them, It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish.

21 The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.

Christ specifically states it would be better for that man if "he had never been born". Take those condemned for eternity to Outer Darkness sure they gained knowledge and developed in mortality. But what they lost was more than what they gained they are after all doomed to eternal punishment. If there truly are those who it is better they have "never been born" and if God knows with 100% accuracy who they are then it would be a cruel act to condemn them to earth life. Because they are worse off having experienced earth life than if they had not. And condemning someone to an experience you know will be more harmful than beneficial is not the act of a loving God.

After some thought I am no longer sure the above argument is sound. If God does have absolute foreknowledge than the future is fixed it cannot be other than God sees. So if God uses his absolute foreknowledge to know that Bill will be worse off after coming to earth. There is nothing God can do to change this. If God sees in the future Bill coming to earth and Bill being worse off for doing so there is nothing God can do the future is fixed. If God foresaw Bill coming to earth Bill will come to earth. And God cannot be blamed for letting Bill come to earth even if he knows Bill will be worse off for doing so.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Jason]

In addition I am not sure how absolute foreknowledge helps out in the case you have outlined. Absolute foreknowledge as has been made abundantly clear on this thread does not force a free agent to do that which is foreseen. Suppose God sees with perfect foreknowledge that Dave will have not have a fair test due to the freely chosen actions of free agents then what? Does God intervene in the free will of those who cause Dave to not have a fair test? Does he force them to make other decisions? God could conceivable alter the environmental influences to cause Dave to have a fair test. But he is still restricting the freely chosen actions of free agents. With Gods influence those who because of their freely chosen decisions would have caused Dave's unfair test chose differently because God intervened. Whether God acts firsthand or secondhand by manipulating the environment it is the same.

God does (or did) intervene - in the most basic way possible.

Who chose what spirit was born to what body at what time and circumstance? God.

If God knew from the beginning that if Dave were born in such and such a time and place that the actions of Biff and Fred would cause him to have an unfair test, then God simply chose to have Dave, Biff, or Fred be born at a different place, time, and circumstance.

Knowing what actions every spirit will take in a given circumstance allowed God to choose who was born where in what circumstances in order to give everyone the perfect set of conditions to ensure that they would have a fair test in this mortal life and that their ultimate reward would be solely the result of actions they have control of. When God does interfere directly (such as in the case of Paul or Alma the Younger) it does not invalidate anyone's test - He only interferes in circumstances where He knows His interferance will not make the test unfair for anyone involved (Paul and Alma were not saved by God's interaction with them - they were saved by what they chose to do after that interaction).

And He planned all of this before anyone was actually born. Before the Earth was even created.

[Uncertain]

I view the bolded sentence above as an idiomatic way for Christ to say: "such actions are very wrong and have terrible consequences", and not as a deep philosophical pronouncement regarding the kinds of human actions that may supercede the value of being born into mortality. Given my understanding of the purpose of mortality, entrance into mortality is always a plus regardless of what actions we may CHOOSE while here. But, to each their own.

Hi Wade,

I think that is a reasonable interpretation of the given scripture. Now personally it is hard for me to see how someone suffering for all eternity in Outer darkness is "better off" than someone living in the preexistence with God. But I do understand there are certain themes in LDS theology i.e.(the importance of a body) that could possible lead to this conclusion even if I find it a little hard to believe. In any case I am no longer certain my above argument is sound (see post 189).

Fortunately, whatever the case may be, it is to our benefit to make choices during our lives that make our having been born into mortality most worthwhile, meaningful, and of great value.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I agree 100% percent.

[Luigi]

These questions become all the more profound when considering that both the past and the future may be the present with God.

I believe the supposed problem of free will and foreknowledge exists only because of our finite and relatively ignorant grasp of things like time.

The good news is that since we aren't in a position to solve the supposed problem, we really don't need to try to solve it--assuming there is even a problem to solve. It is sufficinet for us to figure out what is required for us to progress unto Christ.

My point being, if people lose faith in the restored gospel or abandon useful gospel precepts due to the supposed problem, then they really don't get the gospel, and this ultimately to their disbenefit.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I would agree that as a practical reality we all accept the idea of free will. It is confusing and counter-productive to think of ourselves as being driven about by forces beyond our control. I do think though that the arguments against free will are quite compelling and consequently the argument's extension against a God whose whole plan centers around free will. However, just as a practical day to day functioning and happiness may depend on accepting free will I also acknowledge that for some accepting a God who has a plan centered around that free will can be a beneficial choice and I respect that choice insofar as such individuals are willing to acknowledge that it is, in essence, a practical choice made for their own personal benefit. As you have aptly said, "To each his own."

[Deborah]

Well, here's one way it has something to do with the choices we make. If God knows that tomorrow you will smoke pot, then will you smoke pot tomorrow? Yes or no.

His knowing the outcome doesn't change what we do. It just means that we will do what he knows we will do. We cannot do other than what God knows we will do. It's simple.

How does God knowing whether one will smoke pot change what that person does?

The problem is you are looking at this the wrong way. God's knowledge doesn't come before the fact. We have already made the choice; it's just that he can see past present and future as one (per scriptures already quoted). We made the choice independent of God's knowledge; because he can see the future doesn't change that.

[Uncertain]

God does (or did) intervene - in the most basic way possible.

Who chose what spirit was born to what body at what time and circumstance? God.

If God knew from the beginning that if Dave were born in such and such a time and place that the actions of Biff and Fred would cause him to have an unfair test, then God simply chose to have Dave, Biff, or Fred be born at a different place, time, and circumstance.

Knowing what actions every spirit will take in a given circumstance allowed God to choose who was born where in what circumstances in order to give everyone the perfect set of conditions to ensure that they would have a fair test in this mortal life and that their ultimate reward would be solely the result of actions they have control of. When God does interfere directly (such as in the case of Paul or Alma the Younger) it does not invalidate anyone's test - He only interferes in circumstances where He knows His interferance will not make the test unfair for anyone involved (Paul and Alma were not saved by God's interaction with them - they were saved by what they chose to do after that interaction).

And He palnned all of this before anyone was actually born. Before the Earth was even created.

Hi Jason,

Fair enough, this is still God interfering on a wide scale with the freely chosen decisions of intelligent agents. Do you have an argument why this is the only way God could ensure we are all treated fairly?

This still does not address all of the points I made. For example God may be able to see many possible futures but there is only one actual future. If God sees with perfect foreknowledge that in the future Dave will have an unfair test then Dave will have an unfair test by definition of perfect foreknowledge. Knowing Dave will have an unfair test does not enable God to change this fact if indeed God has perfect foreknowledge. By definition if God foresees it is going to happen it will happen. You seem to be saying God will see Dave having an unfair test and then God will change things so Dave will not have an unfair test. But if this indeed happened God does not in fact have infallible foreknowledge because it means what he foresaw in the future (Dave having an unfair test) did not come to pass.

[wenglund]

You'll have to unpack that a little more for me to follow. Here's a fact about the past: I ate chicken yesterday. In terms of what I'll do today, that fact doesn't entail that the things I undertake to do today are not done freely. So, your right? Facts about the past don't necessarily negate free will. But, why should I think that, because of that, facts about the future don't negate free will (if my understanding of free will is being able to choose from alternatives)? Facts about the future are different sorts of facts. Facts about the past describe what has occurred. Facts about the future describe what will occur. If it's a fact, now, that I will not eat chicken today, then, it is not within my power to eat chicken today (I cannot eat chicken today).

In terms of the supposed problem of free will and foreknowledge, I am not sure what meaningful difference there is between past vs future facts, particularly if for God the past and future facts are each present facts with God.

And, even if you don't accept that the past and future are present with God, but that he is subject to time, to your way of thinking, what is there about future facts that are different from past facts which somehow negate free will?

Think of it this way, what you consider today to be a "past fact" about eating chicken yesterday, is a "future fact" from the perspective of two days ago. The same "fact" is past, present, and future fact.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Zakuska]

So God has forknowledge. He must also have a "prime directive"... can he manipulate "facts" past present or future?

[Brade]

How does God knowing whether one will smoke pot change what that person does?

It doesn't. Show me where I have argued that God's foreknowledge changes what a person does?

The problem is you are looking at this the wrong way. God's knowledge doesn't come before the fact.

Try to make that make sense. Tomorrow I will smoke pot. If God knows all things, including the future, then God knows that it is true that tomorrow I will smoke pot. But, you've just claimed that God's knowledge doesn't come before the fact. So, does God not know today what I will to tomorrow? Or, is there really no such thing as yesterday today and tomorrow?

We have already made the choice; it's just that he can see past present and future as one (per scriptures already quoted). We made the choice independent of God's knowledge; because he can see the future doesn't change that.

Is that true for every action? Are all of my behaviors just the result of a choice I have already made? When did I make those choices? I mean look, answer this, 6000 years ago, did God know that I would type this post?

[wenglund]

I agree with what you've said here. I don't think how one decides the free will problem ought to be a reason to lose faith in the restored gospel. In fact, I think that if somebody loses faith because of the free will problem, then they've misunderstood the problem and the gospel.

...and, I would add, that I see no reason at this point to view it as a "problem".

I know it probably appears, from my posts, that I'm extremely concerned about the problem of free will in the religious context. I'm not.

I didn't see your posts as suggesting this issue is of great concern for you, but jrather as a point of mild interest, prompted as you say by the introduction of the topic. My comment wasn't meant as a criticism of you or even necessarily of anyone else. Instead, it was meant to keep us all (paricularly myself) mindful of what is of utmost importance and to help keep all else in proper perspective.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Lightbearer]

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

Your thoughts?

This is a "fun" philosophical topic that always turns into a heated stalemate and both sides equally are convinced that their argument is the true one. I first formed my opinions of this while on my mission. I was greatly disturbed by the apparent paradox or contradiction caused by the concept of omniscience, omnipotence, and free will. It took me a while but I developed a faith in the scriptures that God does indeed know all things. It bothered me that He already knew the outcome, until I caught hold of the thought that these facts are an expression of His infinite love for us, a love so great that He would rather allow us to be damned than to frustrate our agency. It also explained why the war in heaven was necessary and in fact was another example of God's love. This has been hashed out over many threads, but as this is a new year I suppose I will go "once more into the breach!"

First let me give my understanding of what it means to have "free will" or more doctrinally correct "agency". In the Book of Mormon it states:

(2 Nephi 2:22-29) "And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin. But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things. Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy. And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given. Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself. And now, my sons, I would that ye should look to the great Mediator, and hearken unto his great commandments; and be faithful unto his words, and choose eternal life, according to the will of his Holy Spirit; And not choose eternal death, according to the will of the flesh and the evil which is therein, which giveth the spirit of the devil power to captivate, to bring you down to hell, that he may reign over you in his own kingdom."

Note it even states that God knoweth all things... Could Adam have chosen not to partake? Or did God know Adam would fall? How did His knowledge cause the fall? Note that those who cannot comprehend the foreknowledge of God, cannot trust Him, therefore faith in Him would be impossible. Instead of looking at it from man's mortal perspective, we must trust that God's perspective is not limited. That is what it means when it says that God is infinite and eternal. I submit that our concept of time and space and the understanding of God is limited by our mortal perspective. We see paradoxes where none really exist. Is it a paradox that God can and does interject his influence for our good? His sending of prophets to warn His rebellious children to us is unnecessary if He already knows the future... but did it ever occur to us that it is not about "His knowledge" but it is about our developing into the type of being that He is. We are gods in embryo but if we do not grow to full development we cannot attain to His glory. He is not a student god who is still learning and developing... He is infinite and eternal, we are not as developed as He has become. While Gods, men and angels are all of the same species, we are not all equal in all things.

Now as for God's omniscience it is a declared doctrine of the Church:

(1 Nephi 9:6) "But the Lord knoweth all things from the beginning; wherefore, he prepareth a way to accomplish all his works among the children of men; for behold, he hath all power unto the fulfilling of all his words. And thus it is. Amen."

Now we can equivocate and philosophize till doomsday, but this seems very straightforward. In addition it states the following here:

(Abraham 2:7-8 ) "For I am the Lord thy God; I dwell in heaven; the earth is my footstool; I stretch my hand over the sea, and it obeys my voice; I cause the wind and the fire to be my chariot; I say to the mountains

[nicolasconnault]

I find it interesting that each time I ask "If God is unsure about the future, can God make mistakes?", no one bothers to respond...