God's Foreknowledge

[cksalmon]

LOL! rehashing ex nihilo again?

Well, it's not beyond the realm of possibility. I'm ignorant of the referent, sadly.

Best.

cks

[Jeff K.]

There are a couple of ideas particular to LDS theology that I'm not sure have been discussed as they relate to this thread:

2. It does not necessarily follow that God telling the future to a prophet means that God already knows that this future is absolutely what will happen. If God is omnipotent, and He knows everything that could possibly happen and how it could possibly happen, then He has the power to set events in motion so that through His omnipotence His predictions about the future become a self-fulfilling prophecy, because He makes that particular future happen.

3. Nobody has mentioned God's own free agency. The fundamental aspect of the plan of salvation as expressed in Mormon theology is free agency. Free agency requires a meaningful choice. If "God knows all things" means He knows everything that could possibly happen in the future and how it could possibly happen, then God has absolute free agency because He knows all possible choices that He can make. But if God knows the future because that future is definitely going to happen, then the future is predetermined and therefore God Himself has no free agency.

4. If "God knows all things" means that He knows a specific future that inevitably will happen, then it creates a paradox, because from God's perspective the future is always the past because from His perspective the future has already happened. In other words, the future is always the past because He already saw it happen.

5. If all members of the Godhead are equal in their knowledge, power and majesty, then Jesus Christ is equal to Heavenly Father and knows everything that Heavenly Father does. In D&C 45:3-5, Jesus Christ as a resurrected God said this:

"Listen to him who is the advocate with the Father, who is pleading your cause before him

[Darth J]

Well in the name of randomness, certainly random fallacies.

Fallacy 1. The presumption that a physical body is like ours. Fallacy 2. Time and space are interrelated to us, but we also know that they can be seperated with enerty. Fallacy 3. God exists out of time, to what extent is the question, and does His perception exist out of time or the body also? After those three fallacies I think the idea might work. But then, you really have no idea.

God telling the future does not mean God knows the future. Then are you sayign he isn't sure? Are you saying that perhaps he is false? Is he lying when he tells you something absolutely will happen, but He Himself isn't sure. Its possible? If so, feel free to pull up the scriptures that say "God isn't sure". You presume that the future that exists is self fulfilling, that Gods mere perception makes the future happen. Interesting, but it, as you say, "does not follow".

Agency is interesting and intricate and not well known. Here we see a limited perception, that somehow God cannot exist outside of our existence, and therefore He is forced to the same level and laws of agency we have. I don't know that. The determination of the future may be within what He has created just as the determination of His future may have been based on what created Him.

That is not a paradox, that is simply a perception. If we know the past, and it appears to be predetermined, then how can our agency be destroyed? Or are you saying time cannot be manipulated, it cannot be bent, and there is some magical ring that stops anyone from going back in time? The past and future and present are as one. How indeed does a mind plausibly grasp such a thing? Well human minds cannot, but then, our thoughts are not God's thoughts are they?

Or in otherwords, according to you, God did not suffer from our sins in Gethsemane. An interesting, if false doctrine. Zeezrom would approve of course.

I'm sorry, but I'm too busy getting the Brie and Perrier ready to watch that classic of yuppie cinema, Highlander. http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/48305-gay-couples-will-be-able-to-marry-in-church/page__pid__1208814843__st__80entry1208814843

All of us snobs who are "lacking in wholesome vigor; degenerate; decadent" love low-budget 80's cult movies.

[Darth J]

Darth I agree with all but #1. This based on the assumption of this physical reality in this time and space being subject to Einsteins theory. However if you accept that HF organized matter then this must be from a different universe. Those parameters he set here may not all be subjective to his place of existence. I can say this as in quantum physics we already know that certain rules of Einsteins theorems don't apply in this field i.e. as when a certain electron will change to the opposite electron even before the charges have been fire at each other. This sets a precedent that time and space is irrelevant. IMHO. Therefore since we are a drop of water in a much larger outside celestial landscape then time may not exist in that space and having a physical form is possible. It may not be in the physical form we are accustomed toward.

There is a quote form Christ in the Gospel of Thomas that sticks out.

11. Jesus said, "This heaven will pass away, and the one above it will pass away. The dead are not alive, and the living will not die. During the days when you ate what is dead, you made it come alive. When you are in the light, what will you do? On the day when you were one, you became two. But when you become two, what will you do?"

The duality of man can be in both spiritual and physical form.

Yeah, that could be, too. I guess it's more of trying to think of this question in terms of my understanding of Joseph Smith's teaching about the nature of God: that He lives in the same physical universe we do. But then, what is the physical universe?

[Ahab]

Well, just call me Ishmael, but in and outside of time is merely a catagorization of how we percieve the ability of God to see or perceive, not necessarily a physical place.

A place? I wasn't referring to a place. I was talking about eternity, which consists of time, or what we otherwise refer to as past, present, and future.

The idea that God doesn't exist in time, or that God exists out of time, is just another way of conveying the idea that God doesn't actually exist, in reality. It helps to plant the idea that God, himself, is only an idea with no form or substance of his/their own.

Once a person accepts that idea, their next step down that road is to believe that God doesn't exist anywhere, in reality, other than in the ideas of those who believe in God, but don't jump too far ahead now or you will lose a lot of your potential converts.

The truth is that God does exist, in reality, in some specific place and at some specific time, but please don't let the truth hold you back to whatever you would rather believe.

[Jeff K.]

The idea that God doesn't exist in time, or that God exists out of time, is just another way of conveying the idea that God doesn't actually exist, in reality. It helps to plant the idea that God, himself, is only an idea with no form or substance of his/their own.

That is incorrect. Indeed even in physics it is more than theorized that existence elsewhere, outside of our present "time/place" is almost a given. Not a non-existence. It only reflects that God is not a product of us and our universe, but may indeed be a product from elsewhere. His perception may indeed be a perception from elsewhere....

[Jeff K.]

The truth is that God does exist, in reality, in some specific place and at some specific time, but please don't let the truth hold you back to whatever you would rather believe.

And allow me to add, that the truth is much more than you seem able to bear.

[Lightbearer]

Nobody on the side of the debate that you disagree with (at least in the Mormon context) believes that if God knows what future free choices an agent will make, then he wills those choices. The argument isn't that God's knowledge causes free will to not exist, but that's what you seem to think incompatabilists are claiming. The argument is that if God knows something, then that implies that the content of his knowledge exists, and it's merely a certain sort of content (facts about future free choices, in this case) that threatens free will, not his knowledge of that content.

That makes absolutely no sense at all. So you are saying that if there is the "ability for God to know" (or the fact the knowledge can exists in God's realm) then that automatically cancels out free will? I am trying to understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that mortal men can comprehend the infinite glory and works and the things of God, without being exalted? I do not think so, the problem with your "side of the argument" seems to be in thinking that God is still a mortal man or that He is bound by the same laws we are in this frame of existence. I submit that He is only bound by Celestial law, we are living and perceiving these things from a Telestial existence, while He works within the "laws of nature" I submit that He knows more about those laws than we do and that is why He is able to do things that by our perspective are "impossible" such as walking on water, feeding the five thousand, raising the dead, healing the sick, parting the Red Sea, resurrecting the dead from dust or His beloved Son taking upon Him the sins of the world, not just the sins of those already committed but that would be committed. I think that is the entire problem here. You are trying to solve this problem by declaring that "God knows (only those things He can know) things." But that is not what the scriptures say, (no matter how tortured the interpretation is) and I think that is why there is an ambiguous argument between various Christians (not just LDS) that God either predestinates the world or He does not. The only problem when you start putting "blinders" on God (much how we have "blinders" in this mortal life) then somehow you give God a "fudge factor" where He can make mistakes. How much can you trust revelations that tell the "end from the beginning" if God is only "guessing?" If you contend that we can "surprise Him" then that is what that creates. If we can surprise Him, then why can't an evil force deceive Him? I do not like where that sort of reasoning goes.

For if there were no God, but there were still facts about future free choices, then the incompatabilist (myself, Tom, Ostler) would still say that there could be no free will in the libertarian sense, or that if there is free will in the libertarian sense, then there are no facts about future free choices.

First let me say "if there were no God" then all of this bluster about His omniscience is nothing but empty rhetoric. I come from the position that there is definitely a God, and that He does "know all things" and there isn't "anything that He does not know" which is scripturally sound, this concept is doctrinally accurate unless someone can show a reference from the scriptures or from the living oracles that God is somehow limited in His knowledge of "all things." I do not believe you or anyone else on this board can show that. Quoting philosophers (Mormon or otherwise) does not impress me and while you are at liberty to believe it, I am not bound by it. It smacks of the setting up "stakes" much as the creeds do.

Now come on. This is just a trivial claim. Certainly we can prove that the scriptures say "God knows all things", but that's hardly a proof that God knows all things. If the argument for the claim that God knows all things is based on the fact that a book contains the expression "God knows all things" then the pro-extreme-omniscience folks are in worse shape than I thought. Fortunately for you view, there are much better arguments than that.

How can you say it is trivial? Is the bolded part some sort of "internet mormon apologetic double-speak?" Maybe the standard works are meaningless to you, but they are how I measure doctrine.

[Lightbearer]

This thread is not supposing that He does not know all things, it is discussing what "all things" means.

You realize that "the scriptures say this plain and clear" (not saying that those are your precise words) is the exact same reasoning that Protestants and evangelical Christians use against our teachings, right?

-Mormonism is false, because the Bible says God is a spirit,

-Mormonism is false because it adds to the scriptures and the Bible says not to,

-Mormonism is false because the Bible says that Christ is the only Melchizedek priesthood holder,

-Mormonism is false because the Bible says that the devil will appear as an angel of light (they say this referring to Moroni, for those who think Mormonism was inspired by Satan instead of just made up),

-Mormonism is false because the Bible says that no man has seen God at any time,

Those kinds of things. Which the Bible does in fact say. But what the scriptures "clearly say" isn't so clear to us, is it?

The scripture I quote is not a limited uninspired interpretation of the Bible, it is a quote from scriptures revealed in our dispensation. It is insulting to compare my objections (because of clear statements in modern revelation) to that of those with the limited perspective viewed by the traditions and creeds of the traditional christian churches. The above arguments are straw-men intended to discredit my position as unsound just because I interpret the scripture differently than you. We as LDS do not need to engage is arguing over what these scriptures mean, do you have one Conference talk, one lesson, or even a book by a General Authority that espouses your position? I have never heard an apostle, prophet or even a seventy that said that God does not have all knowledge, or that somehow that statement is limited. It is disturbing to see LDS squabbling like a bunch of sectarians over what Latter-day Scripture means! No wonder we are going "back to basics" in PH and RS, but even then the simplest of doctrines become a contentious mess on these boards, I could understand if it were Anti-Mormons or non-LDS christians arguing over these doctrines but LDS against LDS? I can see how the Great Apostasy occurred now... sure am glad that we have the promise that it will never again be taken from the earth.

[TOmNossor]

Lightbearer and Jeff,

I thought this thread might wind down, but it seems that something Brade said was not understood. In the past I offered this and I hope it will illuminate what we are trying to suggest.

That makes absolutely no sense at all. So you are saying that if there is the "ability for God to know" (or the fact the knowledge can exists in God's realm) then that automatically cancels out free will? I am trying to understand what you are saying here.

Here is some code (it will be explained later):

A. Is it true that you DTP at Q?

B. Is it true that you did NDTP at Q?

C. Neither A nor B is true at this time.

I will mention this later.

I am a LDS indetermist (I believe in libertarian agent causation) who believes in libertarian free will (LFW). JohnDoe is a LDS determinist who believes in compatiblism. Some non-LDS are determinists and believe that God created ex nihilo. These are certainly philosophically thick questions.

I am quite comfortable saying that God has all power and knows all things. But, if we are going to discuss the technicalities of human free will and God

[Brade]

So you are saying that if there is the "ability for God to know" (or the fact the knowledge can exists in God's realm) then that automatically cancels out free will?

You're getting closer. I'm saying that "if there is the 'ability for God to know'" future free choices, then there is no libertarian free will (the ability to do otherwise). I'm not claiming that any old sort of knowledge that could be possessed by God threatens libertarian free will. I'm making a much more specific claim than that. I'm claiming that if God has knowledge of a very particular sort

[Brade]

Lightbearer and Jeff,

I thought this thread might wind down, but it seems that something Brade said was not understood. In the past I offered this and I hope it will illuminate what we are trying to suggest.

Here is some code (it will be explained later):

A. Is it true that you DTP at Q?

B. Is it true that you did NDTP at Q?

C. Neither A nor B is true at this time.

I will mention this later.

I am a LDS indetermist (I believe in libertarian agent causation) who believes in libertarian free will (LFW). JohnDoe is a LDS determinist who believes in compatiblism. Some non-LDS are determinists and believe that God created ex nihilo. These are certainly philosophically thick questions.

I am quite comfortable saying that God has all power and knows all things. But, if we are going to discuss the technicalities of human free will and God

[Ahab]

That is incorrect.

I believe your understanding of my idea is incorrect, and I'll try to clarify my idea for you a little bit here.

Indeed even in physics it is more than theorized that existence elsewhere, outside of our present "time/place" is almost a given.

I'll go even further and state that it's an absolute fact that there is an existence elsewhere, outside of our present "time/place", and in fact there is an infinity of times and places other than in the present.

Something is either in the present, or the past, or the future, and there is no other possiblity.

[it only reflects that God is not a product of us and our universe, but may indeed be a product from elsewhere. His perception may indeed be a perception from elsewhere....

Wherever that "elsewhere" is, it is in a specific place, and that place exists in a moment of eternity which we now refer to as either past, present, or future. There is no other possibility in all of reality.

[Ahab]

And allow me to add, that the truth is much more than you seem able to bear.

Sure, feel free to share your opinion with me at any moment you like.

I know who to go to to find out what is true.

[Lightbearer]

I found the following that may help some on the topic being discussed and the divergent views in the different members here:

(Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1-4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan, 1992),, p.521)

Foreknowledge of God

Modern scripture speaks unequivocally of the foreknowledge of God: "All things are present before mine eyes" (D&C 38:2). It affirms that God has a fulness of truth, a "knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come" (D&C 93:24, emphasis added).

Divine foreknowledge includes the power to know even the thoughts and intents of the human heart: "There is none else save God that knowest thy thoughts and the intents of thy heart" (D&C 6:16). Divine foreknowledge is at least, in part, knowledge of his own purposive plans for the cosmos and for humankind, plans that "cannot be frustrated, neither can they come to naught" (D&C 3:1). "Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world" (Acts 15:18; Abr. 2:8 ). These include the conditions of the Plan of Salvation. For example, "God did elect or predestinate that all those who would be saved, should be saved in Christ Jesus, and through obedience to the Gospel" (TPJS, p. 189). It is likewise foreknown that all humankind will die, be resurrected, and be brought to judgment.

In scripture, the root terms for divine knowing connote more than a subject-object, cognitive relationship; they imply a close, direct, participative, affective awareness. Divine foreknowledge is the knowledge of a Heavenly Father, not knowledge of a metaphysical abstraction. Scriptures that speak of divine foreknowledge emphasize God's understanding of an experience with his people and their destiny rather than the content and logic of that knowledge. Anyone seeking to understand divine foreknowledge must begin by recognizing that scripture does not directly address the question as it has been formulated in philosophy and theology, where the emphasis is on the content and logic of knowledge. The scriptures are explicit that God knows all and that we can trust him. They have not been explicit about what that means philosophically or theologically. Consequently, short of new revelation, any answer to the theological question of God's foreknowledge can be only speculative.

In an attempt to reconcile divine foreknowledge and human freedom, major Jewish and Christian theologians and philosophers have offered three alternatives. In the first, both horns of the dilemma are affirmed: "Everything is foreseen, and freedom of choice is given." This is the position of Rabbi Akiba and Maimonides (Aboth 3, 19; Yad, Teshuvah 5:5), as well as of Augustine and Anselm (City of God 5.9-10; The Harmony of the Foreknowledge, the Predestination, and the Grace of God with Free Choice 1.3). Maimonides argues that though it is logically impossible for human foreknowledge of one's actions to be compatible with freedom, God's foreknowledge, which is of a different and mysterious kind, is compatible with freedom.

In the second, God's foreknowledge is limited. Since people are free, God knows the possibilities and probabilities of human choice, but not the inevitabilities. God is omniscient in knowing all that can be known; but not in knowing beforehand exactly how people will use their freedom, since that cannot be known because future, contingent events do not exist. This is the view of the Talmudist Gersonides (Levi Ben Gershon, 1288-1344; Milhamot Adonai, III, 6) and, with some modifications, of Charles Hartshorne and process philosophers.

In the third, humans are not genuinely free. Freedom is an illusion that arises from human ignorance of divine cause and necessity. All that individuals do is actually determined and predetermined. God both pre-knows and pre-causes all that occurs. This is the view of Spinoza and Calvin.

Historically, most Latter-day Saints have taken the first general position: everything is foreseen and freedom remains. Some have taken the second, that God's foreknowledge is not absolute. The third alternative, that human freedom is illusory, is incompatible with LDS belief in genuine free agency and responsibility. Praise and blame, accountability and judgment, are meaningless unless humans are free. Any doctrine of foreknowledge that undercuts this principle violates the spirit and letter of LDS scripture.

Consequently divine foreknowledge, however it is finally defined, is not predestination. What God foresees is not, for that reason, divinely caused, even though it is in some sense known (Talmage, p. 317). Divine foreknowledge is the background of foreordination. But, again, foreordination is not pre-causation. Rather, "foreordination is a conditional bestowal of a role, a responsibility, or a blessing which, likewise, foresees but does not fix the outcome" (Maxwell, p. 71).

I think this is the most complete answer I have found. I of course hold position one and assume those who have argued with me here believe in position two?

[cksalmon]

I found the following that may help some on the topic being discussed and the divergent views in the different members here:I think this is the most complete answer I have found. I of course hold position one and assume those who have argued with me here believe in position two?

There are problems (already outlined above) with 1, not addressed in the article. 3 begs the question in the service of an easily dismissed equivocation.

cks

[Brade]

That's not a bad article for a rough sketch of the landscape. In terms of the first option presented in that entry, it is difficult to see how God's knowing of a fact could be different in kind than an ordinary human's knowing of a fact such that God's knowing avoids incompatibility with libertarian free will. Simply put, knowing is knowing. I can agree about this much, if God's knowing is of a nature that does not conflict with libertarian free will, then it certainly is mysterious. It's difficult for me to see why that option is so popular among Mormons. The religion has historically been one of playing up the our-religion-doesn't-appeal-to-mystery position as an attractive feature in opposition to other Christian faiths.

[cksalmon]

That's not a bad article for a rough sketch of the landscape.

Perhaps not, at least in terms of a "rough sketch" of the LDS landscape, I suppose. But, it's really not particularly helpful beyond obvious superficialities.

cks

[Brade]

Perhaps not, at least in terms of a "rough sketch" of the LDS landscape, I suppose. But, it's really not particularly helpful beyond obvious superficialities.

cks

I agree.

[TOmNossor]

I really liked that little exercise! Also, I apologize if I took too much liberty in speaking for you in my last post.

Thanks. I haven't felt that you have taken too much liberty in speaking for me, I hope you have not felt that I have done that with respect to your thoughts.

Lightbearer,

I am glad you found that article. I would definately fall into #2. I have explained during this thread why I do not think #2 presents any LOGICAL problems with believing that God can ABSOLUTELY plan for the future such that He can KNOW that His plans will come to pass.

Not being God, I can readily acknowledge that I cannot get my mind around the amount of mental processing AND the amount of knowledge AND the amount of planning that must be required to

[consiglieri]

Sure, feel free to share your opinion with me at any moment you like.

I know who to go to to find out what is true.

Why do I smell a Bat-Man?

You breathe so loud I could shoot you in the dark.

[JDave]

I think humility suggest that we should not boldly declare that since reason seems to demand one view we cannot embrace the other. More than this, I think humility demands that we cannot demand that others follow our thinking. John Doe thinks my view of

[Brade]

Not speaking for Lightbearer at all, but I find myself in the bolded position. I believe that forum member 'Jason' also holds position #1, while fully realizing the difficulties inherent to the position.

As a newcomer to philosophy in general, while still coming with a fair knowledge of physics and logic, I would note that it takes a little while to see the problems described. And I would guess that the referenced encyclopedia article is correct that most LDS hold position #1, although not even half understand even half of what is being discussed in this thread.

It's interesting to me that in nearly every instance of face to face discussions about this topic the first response I hear to arguments for the incompatibility of foreknowledge with libertarian free will is that knowledge of somebody's actions doesn't force them to do that action. That response is often followed up by some story about how one can know what their child will do in a given situation, but that that knowledge doesn't force their child to behave the way that they do. Responses like that are clear indicators that the respondent doesn't fully grasp the issue. I think your assessment is right on. This stuff isn't easy to grasp. It seems like it ought to be because the concepts involved seem very ordinary and we all intuitively feel that we have a good grasp of them (e.g. free will, omniscience, space, time). But when you begin to unpack the ideas and shuffle them around in a logical framework, you inevitably find problems

[JDave]

It's interesting to me that in nearly every instance of face to face discussions about this topic the first response I hear to arguments for the incompatibility of foreknowledge with libertarian free will is that knowledge of somebody's actions doesn't force them to do that action. That response is often followed up by some story about how one can know what their child will do in a given situation, but that that knowledge doesn't force their child to behave the way that they do.

I believe I responded this way to our first discussion on the matter though I think I avoided resorting to any stories about knowing what my kids will do. Maybe that is because my kids manage to surprise me often enough.

This stuff isn't easy to grasp. It seems like it ought to be because the concepts involved seem very ordinary and we all intuitively feel that we have a good grasp of them (e.g. free will, omniscience, space, time). But when you begin to unpack the ideas and shuffle them around in a logical framework, you inevitably find problems

[Jason]

I believe that forum member 'Jason' also holds position #1, while fully realizing the difficulties inherent to the position.

More or less, yes.

It's a paradox how we can still be free, but I see no way around God's ability to predict such tiny details as Joseph Smith Sr. and Jr.'s names thousands of years before they are born with 100% accuracy if He does not in fact have perfect foreknowledge.