There is no free will if God is omniscient

[nicolasconnault]

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?

Sorry to go back to a previous post, but you didn't say anything about it...

[Brade]

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?

I thought I explained that in my post. If you don't see a difference between these two propositions, "I went to the store yesterday" and "I will be hit by a red Volvo driven by a walrus on December 21st, 2012", then I'm not sure we have much else to talk about. The fact that one proposition is about the past and one is about the future is the relevant difference.

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.

You're right. But I'm not in two days ago. I'm in now.

The same "fact" is past, present, and future fact.

You obviously mean something more than the triviality that facts are past, present, or future at different times. Consider the proposition "It is January 6th, 2010". The truth value of that utterance is true when I utter it today. But, if I utter the same sentence on January 7th, the truth value is false. This is, in some sense, is just trivial. On January 7th I can't make my January 6th utterance that "It is January 6th, 2010" and it be true. That very same utterance is not a fact on January 7th. Here's something similar that is a fact on January 7th: "It was January 7th, 2010".

But, you mean something more metaphysical than that. You seem to think, in some way, there are just untensed facts. I reject a timelessness ontology of time (???) for the simple reason that it is completely at odds with our ordinary experience and we have no good reason to think that, in reality, there is no time. Either time is ordered or it's not. It could be the case, as you and others seem to believe, that we (mere humans) perceive time as ordered but that God perceives it correctly as all present. To be clear, that isn't two ontologies of time

[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?

Certainly. The parable of the talents.

We all began, even before we were born, with different capacities and abilities. What constitutes a "fair test" is therefore as individual as we are, therefore God had to arrange things such that each individual would have the circumstances that would constitute a fair test for each of them personally.

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

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.

God predicted what circumstances would have given Dave an unfair test and then acted so that the future in which Dave would have a fair test became reality.

Yes, that also means that quite probably God forsaw Himself acting to change the future in order to give Dave a fair test, and so knew exactly what steps He would take before He took them.

God's perfect foreknowledge cannot include seeing any of His children being denied a fair test because He acted to ensure that everyone's test would be fair, and the real future that will really happen which God knew would be the future from the beginning therefore doesn't include anyone receiving an unfair test.

[wenglund]

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.

It may also be false to think that way.

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.

When you speak of arguments you find compelling against "free will", are you including arguments against limited 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.

It may also be a choice made for the benefit of one and all, though it is a CHOICE nevertheless.

As you have aptly said, "To each his own."

Indeed.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Brade]

Yes, I was arguing against the misleading and ambiguous use of the word "can". In a philosophical argument I expect to use more precise words

Sorry, I missed that. This discussion has been pretty fast. See my possible world semantics post for a clearer notion of what the relevant senses of "can" and "being able to do otherwise" are.

Saying that something "can happen" is not semantically identical to saying that "I can do something".

Yep, sounds right to me.

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...

You'll have to forgive me, I missed those requests. Yes, I think God can make mistakes. Will he? I don't know, I hope not. Is that view at odds with LDS orthodoxy? Yes, I think so. Does that bother me? No.

[Zakuska]

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...

Try Reading Amos 7 then we might be able to proceed.

[Jason]

My position is that God does know the future with certainty and cannot make mistakes, yet we have free will.

Yes, it's an apparent contradiction.

What does Amos 7 have to do with anything?

[Brade]

My position is that God does know the future with certainty and cannot make mistakes, yet we have free will.

Yes, it's an apparent contradiction.

I applaud you Jason. In fact, I hope you end up being right.

[nicolasconnault]

Try Reading Amos 7 then we might be able to proceed.

I've read it. Can we proceed?

[Zakuska]

My position is that God does know the future with certainty and cannot make mistakes, yet we have free will.

Yes, it's an apparent contradiction.

What does Amos 7 have to do with anything?

God lays out the 3 alternate realities and then chooses the course history is finally going to take, RE: Jacob and Israel.

How is that set in stone foreknowledge? or Fate. (You call it "know the future with certainty")

[Jason]

God lays out the 3 alternate realities and then chooses the course history is finally going to take, RE: Jacob and Israel.

I'm not seeing it.

How does not being able to perfectly forsee the future fit with predicting the number of generations before the Nephites are destroyed by the Lamanites, or the name of Joseph Smith and his father? Were those just good guesses? Are there any non-conditional prophecies in scripture that the Lord was completely wrong on?

[nicolasconnault]

I applaud you Jason. In fact, I hope you end up being right.

My view is the same as Jason's. I cannot put my trust in a God who is capable of making mistakes. I don't know how you can do it. It's a bizarre theology if I ever saw one.

My fear is that, in an attempt to resolve an apparent contradiction, we resolve to drastic reductionism and constrain God, his character and attributes, to our mortal understanding. This appears to be what proponents of the "God cannot know future events of free agents" idea are doing.

I'm comfortable with the idea that I cannot comprehend all that God can comprehend. I will eventually, though, especially if I don't get too caught up with what appears to be contradictions.

[Zakuska]

I'm not seeing it.

How does not being able to perfectly forsee the future fit with predicting the number of generations before the Nephites are destroyed by the Lamanites, or the name of Joseph Smith and his father? Were those just good guesses? Are there any non-conditional prophecies in scripture that the Lord was completely wrong on?

You don't see God laying out 3 possible futures and then choosing the one that best meets his intentions?

Future #1:

Amos 7

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

[Jason]

If I squinch my eyes just right I may see God showing Amos three alternate views of events, but does that mean they were all real alternate possibilities that God didn't know of before that moment, and that he then chose the one he liked best? You seem to be stretching a little here.

Does "this shall not be" really mean "I'm changing my mind" or does it mean "this is something that won't actually happen"?

Did God see Ninevah being destroyed and then Jonah changed things? Or did He know all along that Ninevah would not be destroyed and just told Jonah what would have happened if he (Jonah) didn't act?

[Luigi]

It may also be false to think that way.

Maybe. But as the argument stands on this thread and what I've read elsewhere no one seems able to make a compelling argument for free will.

When you speak of arguments you find compelling against "free will", are you including arguments against limited free will?

Yes.

It may also be a choice made for the benefit of one and all, though it is a CHOICE nevertheless.

It may be indeed be a beneficial choice for all though my own observation would suggest otherwise and I recognize the irony of using the term choice myself in this instance. I adopt the language of free will as a practical necessity as well:).

[Zakuska]

If I squinch my eyes just right I may see God showing Amos three alternate views of events, but does that mean they were all real alternate possibilities that God didn't know of before that moment, and that he then chose the one he liked best? You seem to be stretching a little here.

Does "this shall not be" really mean "I'm changing my mind" or does it mean "this is something that won't actually happen"?

Did God see Ninevah being destroyed and then Jonah changed things? Or did He know all along that Ninevah would not be destroyed and just told Jonah what would have happened if he (Jonah) didn't act?

If you ask those questions don't hold back...

God was going to Destroy the Entire Israelite race from the face of the planet until moses stepped in and turned away his wrath.

Heb 3

8 Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness:

9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years.

10 Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways.

11 So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.)

12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.

13 But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.

14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;

15 While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation.

16 For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.

17 But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness?

18 And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not?

19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

We don't worship a God who is set in Stone and can never change. We worship a LIVING God.

[Brade]

My view is the same as Jason's. I cannot put my trust in a God who is capable of making mistakes. I don't know how you can do it. It's a bizarre theology if I ever saw one.

My fear is that, in an attempt to resolve an apparent contradiction, we resolve to drastic reductionism and constrain God, his character and attributes, to our mortal understanding. This appears to be what proponents of the "God cannot know future events of free agents" idea are doing.

Maybe that's what we're doing. But it's not clear to me why anyone should have ever have reasonably thought of God in such absolutist terms in the first place. On my view, I'm not constraining God, I'm discovering his nature.

I'm comfortable with the idea that I cannot comprehend all that God can comprehend. I will eventually, though, especially if I don't get too caught up with what appears to be contradictions.

Fair enough.

[Jason]

If you ask those questions don't hold back...

God was going to Destroy the Entire Israelite race from the face of the planet until moses stepped in and turned away his wrath.

God may have appeared to be about to destroy the Israelites until Moses acted.

I suppose you'll also argue that God really didn't know where Adam was hiding, or who told Adam he was naked, until he asked and Adam answered?

We don't worship a God who is set in Stone and can never change. We worship a LIVING God.

I agree, but I don't think that rules out His having foreknowledge of events.

[Zakuska]

I agree, but I don't think that rules out His having foreknowledge of events.

Niether do I, the question is how intimatley does he know future events?

Perhaps his fore knowledge is more like the "Table of Contents" in a book and then he lets us fill in the details by living out our lifes. He does know the begining... he's also read the last chapter. But there is a Huge Chunk that does not seem to be known.

1. Rev. 10: 4 4 And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not.

[Uncertain]

Certainly. The parable of the talents.

We all began, even before we were born, with different capacities and abilities. What constitutes a "fair test" is therefore as individual as we are, therefore God had to arrange things such that each individual would have the circumstances that would constitute a fair test for each of them personally.

Hi Jason,

I remember we have discussed something similar in the past. I cannot see God doing this and still retaining free agency. Clearly whether or not we have a "fair test" is highly dependent on the free will choices of other agents. If Dan's "fair test" requires marriage to Susan and God knows factors X, Y and Z will cause Susan to chose to marry Dan and God supplies factors X, Y and Z it is not Susan that is choosing to marry Dan God is choosing for her. If God knows infallibly ahead of time what will cause someone to choose a certain path and God provides those causes God is the one doing the choosing. In any case this is getting somewhat off topic.

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

God predicted what circumstances would have given Dave an unfair test and then acted so that the future in which Dave would have a fair test became reality.

Yes, that also means that quite probably God forsaw Himself acting to change the future in order to give Dave a fair test, and so knew exactly what steps He would take before He took them.

God's perfect foreknowledge cannot include seeing any of His children being denied a fair test because He acted to ensure that everyone's test would be fair, and the real future that will really happen which God knew would be the future from the beginning therefore doesn't include anyone receiving an unfair test.

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

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

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

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Mudcat]

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

Your thoughts?

Hi Manny,

I am an EV and I support the notion of free will, in that I have the power to make decisions of my own volition. The most primary point being that I can choose a relationship with God or reject such a relationship.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[Jason]

Niether do I, the question is how intimatley does he know future events?

Enough to be able to predict Joseph Smith and his father's name four thousand years before they were born. Enough to tell Nephi exactly what Seantum would do when accused of murdering his brother the chief judge.

In other words - pretty intimately.

Perhaps his fore knowledge is more like the "Table of Contents" in a book and then he lets us fill in the details by living out our lifes. He does know the begining... he's also read the last chapter. But there is a Huge Chunk that does not seem to be known.

To us, sure. Not to Him. Your example shows that God did tell John what would be happening, but then told him not to write it, not that God didn't know what would be happening.

[Zakuska]

Enough to be able to predict Joseph Smith and his father's name four thousand years before they were born. Enough to tell Nephi exactly what Seantum would do when accused of murdering his brother the chief judge.

In other words - pretty intimately.

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

To us, sure. Not to Him. Your example shows that God did tell John what would be happening, but then told him not to write it, not that God didn't know what would be happening.

The details arent written yet.

[wenglund]

I thought I explained that in my post. If you don't see a difference between these two propositions, "I went to the store yesterday" and "I will be hit by a red Volvo driven by a walrus on December 21st, 2012", then I'm not sure we have much else to talk about. The fact that one proposition is about the past and one is about the future is the relevant difference.

I do see the differences. Obviously. It is just that, thus far, your differentiating between the "past" and "present" are relevant and meaningful differences in terms of TIME, but you have yet to establish why they are meaningful differences in terms of FREE WILL. Do you understand this difference?

You're right. But I'm not in two days ago. I'm in now.

True. So? Has your free will been altered or not because you are not in two days ago, but in now? Would you somehow lose your free will had God known two days ago what you now know today?

You obviously mean something more than the triviality that facts are past, present, or future at different times. Consider the proposition "It is January 6th, 2010". The truth value of that utterance is true when I utter it today. But, if I utter the same sentence on January 7th, the truth value is false. This is, in some sense, is just trivial. On January 7th I can't make my January 6th utterance that "It is January 6th, 2010" and it be true. That very same utterance is not a fact on January 7th. Here's something similar that is a fact on January 7th: "It was January 7th, 2010".

You are making a good argument for the relative nature of "truth values". But, I don't see how this argues for or against free will in terms of foreknowledge.

But, you mean something more metaphysical than that. You seem to think, in some way, there are just untensed facts.

Yes and no. I mean that the facts are, in certain respects untensed, and in other respects they are relatively tensed (depending upon what point in time one has in mind) as past, present, and future, and at once (perhaps in the mind of God) tensed as past, present, and future.

I reject a timelessness ontology of time (???) for the simple reason that it is completely at odds with our ordinary experience and we have no good reason to think that, in reality, there is no time. Either time is ordered or it's not. It could be the case, as you and others seem to believe, that we (mere humans) perceive time as ordered but that God perceives it correctly as all present. To be clear, that isn't two ontologies of time

[wenglund]

You'll have to forgive me, I missed those requests. Yes, I think God can make mistakes. Will he? I don't know, I hope not. Is that view at odds with LDS orthodoxy? Yes, I think so. Does that bother me? No.

I don't know that it is at odds with LDS orthodoxy. In fact, I am not sure there is an orthodoxy on this specific issue. Certainly, I don't see much need for the orthodoxy since our concern ought to be about increasingly minimizing our own personal mistakes, rather than concerning ourselves with whether God can make mistakes or not. I trust you share my view.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-