God's Foreknowledge

[RoseMadder]

Ahab, I've done my best to decipher your comments regarding time. "The Now", in its strictest and most immediate sense, is unarguably evanescent--the most fleeting of experiences. If that's what you're trying to get across, then fine. I've no quarrel with you.

What I don't get is how that makes a whit of difference to the discussion at hand. Apparently you hold both of these beliefs: (1) God has complete foreknowledge and (2) humans have libertarian free will. No discussion of time lines will reconcile the breach of logic between those two affirmations.

Let's put this in more concrete terms: If Sally truly has libertarian free will, then God is waiting right along with Eric to see if she's going to

. God cannot know Sally's decision with certainty, because Sally has multiple choices open to her from which she may freely choose.

If God has complete foreknowledge, then Sally does not have libertarian free will. She will either acquiesce or not in complete accordance with the foreknowledge of God. She cannot choose otherwise.

The question of whether or not God's certain foreknowledge is compatible with human possession of libertarian free will has already been answered. The answer is "No." To me, the question then is: If God is omniscient, and Sally's choice is fixed, is she responsible for her choice?

[Ahab]

But if God absolutely knows what you will do then you have no real power to do otherwise.

Right, but I was the one who chose to do what I did, whatever I did. That was my choice.

Your future is fixed, and there is no real possibility of avoiding it through any choice you make - you have effectively already made those choices.

Right, but each choice I made, or will make, will be the choice that I chose to make while I retained the freedom to do whatever I did.

In such a scenario you do not have libertarian free will.

Wrong. That is exactly what I have.

[Ahab]

Apparently you hold both of these beliefs: (1) God has complete foreknowledge and (2) humans have libertarian free will.

Right.

No discussion of time lines will reconcile the breach of logic between those two affirmations.

There is no breach of logic between both of those two affirmations, and the fact that you think there is a breach of logic between both of those two affirmations shows that you are not thinking logically.

God knows what I am going to do before I do it, but I have been, now am, and will always be the one to choose what I did, now do, and will do.

Let's put this in more concrete terms: If Sally truly has libertarian free will, then God is waiting right along with Eric to see if she's going to

.

Nope, that is not what libertarian free will implies. Libertarian free will simply refers to having total freedom to make any choice a person can possibly make. It doesn't automatically rule out the idea that somebody can know what someone will do. That's your own idea which you are trying to attach to what it means to have libertarian free will.

In reality, God already knows whether or not Sally is going to lay down, even before Sally makes her own choice about whether or not she will lay down, and the reason he knows what she will do stems from the fact that God has already seen her make that choice, whatever she chose to do.

God cannot know Sally's decision with certainty, because Sally has multiple choices open to her from which she may freely choose.

God knows Sally had multiple choices open to her from which she may freely choose, and while God knows all of the choices Sally can possibly make, God also knows which choice Sally will choose because he has already seen her make it. That's an advantage God has by being able to see the future.

Have fun making whatever choice you choose to make, and while making it, realize that God already knew that you would do that.

[Jason]

Right, but each choice I made, or will make, will be the choice that I chose to make while I retained the freedom to do whatever I did.

You seem to be mistaken about what libertarian free will means, saying that you have it because no one was compelling you to take any particular action.

Libertarian free will does not mean "the freedom to act without compulsion". It means that there was a real possibility of you having acted otherwise - that another choice might really have happened. That is why it is incompatible with a fixed future.

[Ahab]

You seem to be mistaken about what libertarian free will means, saying that you have it because no one was compelling you to take any particular action.

Libertarian free will does not mean "the freedom to act without compulsion". It means that there was a real possibility of you having acted otherwise - that another choice might really have happened. That is why it is incompatible with a fixed future.

There is a real possibility of each one of us having acted otherwise at the moment we chose to make a choice, but after that moment is past, whatever we chose to do will then be evident in that future, and that's what God is able to see because he can actually see the future... regardless of which choice a person chose to make.

Try to understand that whatever you will do will be evident in the future from that moment of that choice, but once you have made that choice anyone who can see the past will be able to see what choice you made at that moment because that moment would then be a part of the past.

Think about this:

Tomorrow is the future of today, and once tomorrow comes today will be a part of the past.

Do you understand that?

If you do, you should be able to see how it is possible to see the future of all yesterdays, today.

[Lightbearer]

That's what Maxwell believed at one time. However, he later revised his beliefs. Maxwell gave a similar discourse more recently after which Blake Ostler spoke with him and elucidated the logic of Maxwell's claims. Maxwell subsequently backed down from his position (the one he describes in the discourse you just quoted) and conceded that it is enough for God to know enough sufficient to warrant our trust in him and that he (Maxwell) was now agnostic as to whether God knows the future free choices of putatively free agents. Essentially, Maxwell found Ostler's argument for the incompatibility of libertarian free will and divine foreknowledge compelling, and, as the story goes, he (Maxwell) felt that he did not want endorse an incoherent theory (i.e. the compatibility of libertarian free will and divine foreknowledge).

I am getting the feeling that I am acquiring some of this "foreknowledge" myself... I had the strangest feeling that you were going to say exactly what you have posted here. I am also wondering who Blake Ostler thinks he is? I mean it takes a lot of guts (or stupidity) to question the doctrinal understanding of an apostle of God. I would also be interested to know if you have a documented reference of this or is this just an anecdote to bolster Ostler's ego or book sales? Or perhaps you have a published talk where Elder Maxwell reversed his position? Yes this is a CFR. I find it odd that on this board if you quote Bruce R. McConkie or JFS you get the proverbial "that's just his uninspired opinion as a man, not as a prophet, seer, and revelator" but when someone quotes someone like Olster, and don't get me wrong I am not trying to disrespect him in any way, I mean anyone can write a book, or get academic degrees and anyone can spin their own version of philosophy, but why must we accept their position as the Gospel truth, even though he really has no authority to speak for the Church! Furthermore who says that agency is the same thing as "libertarian free-will"? How do we even know this is in keeping with the doctrine of the Church? I suppose I should back out of this thread, I did not start it and obviously my sentiments do not go along with the rest of those in this thread. Like I said, when I went on my mission 30 years ago the concept of Omniscience disturbed me, but I have learned to accept the fact that I cannot rationalize or explain through logic the mysteries of God. I sort of adopted the following philosophy about the question:

(Mosiah 4:9) "Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things, both in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend."

I think this strikes at the very heart of what we are discussing here. I guess the reason I get so exercised over this question is because the idea that we can "surprise God" or that God's foreknowledge is not perfect or exact is that it places believers in prophecy in the following position:

(Alma 30:13-16) "O ye that are bound down under a foolish and a vain hope, why do ye yoke yourselves with such foolish things? Why do ye look for a Christ? For no man can know of anything which is to come. Behold, these things which ye call prophecies, which ye say are handed down by holy prophets, behold, they are foolish traditions of your fathers. How do ye know of their surety? Behold, ye cannot know of things which ye do not see; therefore ye cannot know that there shall be a Christ. Ye look forward and say that ye see a remission of your sins. But behold, it is the effect of a frenzied mind; and this derangement of your minds comes because of the traditions of your fathers, which lead you away into a belief of things which are not so."

Now please don't think that I am comparing you and/or Ostler to an Anti-Christ, but the arguments against God not having a sure knowledge of the future seems pretty close to what Korihor was preaching here. If things are not necessarily going to happen of what real value is the gift of prophecy or being a seer? I mean we see through a glass darkly while we are here on this earth, but I just cannot believe the curtain of eternity is closed to the mind of God. If all things are present before Him, past, present, and future, how else can one interpret those passages? Just glibly saying they are wrong is a bold allegation and places God in a position of being a liar. I guess I have hashed this over enough, but to say that we cannot know the future places a devaluing of every prediction made about the future from the Standard Works really meaningless. It clearly states that many prophets "saw" things before the happened and in some cases described it in detail. If God could not "see" these things how could He make them known unto His prophets?

But I can tell that I am just wasting band width everyone must form their own opinions and live with them. I guess I am stupid for espousing an "illogical" conclusion, but then again I am not a Vulcan and do not think everything has to hinge on "logic" (or what some philosopher says is logical or not) to be true.

So I guess I am done:

[Jason]

There is a real possibility of each one of us having acted otherwise at the moment we chose to make a choice, but after that moment is past, whatever we chose to do will then be evident in that future, and that's what God is able to see because he can actually see the future... regardless of which choice a person chose to make.

Largely irrelevent to the paradox.

God foresaw what choice you made in the fixed future before you made it, and although you appeared to have the possibility of making a different choice in the present, in fact you had no ability to make any choice except the one that God foresaw in the past.

Therefore you did not have libertarian free will, because it by definition requires having the real ability to have chosen otherwise.

[Ahab]

Largely irrelevent to the paradox.

God foresaw what choice you made in the fixed future before you made it, and although you appeared to have the possibility of making a different choice in the present, in fact you had no ability to make any choice except the one that God foresaw in the past.

Close, but not quite, and I think maybe the idea of

[All-Seeing Eye]

But if our actions are deterministic, would it be moral to punish us for them? After all, we could not have done otherwise.

Hm. Good point. I'd say no.

But then, I've heard many LDS people describe God's actions toward us in a way that really doesn't come across as "punishment" at all. Many LDS people I've talked to are of the opinion that God merely places us in the kingdom in which we will be the most comfortable. Far from being punitive in nature, such placement actually seems compassionate. This is one view from the LDS church that I really liked. Maybe it's false doctrine, but if it is, that's some good false doctrine.

[Jason]

Alright, I give up Ahab. Apparently your destiny does not allow you to see the problem.

[Jason]

Hm. Good point. I'd say no.

Which is why I find myself unable to accept determanism.

But then, I've heard many LDS people describe God's actions toward us in a way that really doesn't come across as "punishment" at all. Many LDS people I've talked to are of the opinion that God merely places us in the kingdom in which we will be the most comfortable. Far from being punitive in nature, such placement actually seems compassionate. This is one view from the LDS church that I really liked. Maybe it's false doctrine, but if it is, that's some good false doctrine.

While each of us who kept our first estate will inherit a kingdom of glory, it's hard to call what happens to the Sons of Perdition anything but a punishment.

[All-Seeing Eye]

Which is why I find myself unable to accept determanism.

While each of us who kept our first estate will inherit a kingdom of glory, it's hard to call what happens to the Sons of Perdition anything but a punishment.

Unless you subscribe to the (probably also false doctrinal) view that Sons of Perdition are spiritually destroyed and reorganized into new beings. That would be a good thing for them.

[Ahab]

Alright, I give up Ahab.

Would it help you if I told you I already understand what you meant and that I disagree with you only because I already know you are wrong?

Apparently your destiny does not allow you to see the problem.

Perhaps in the future you'll be able to see that you are one of those who was wrong.

[Ahab]

While each of us who kept our first estate will inherit a kingdom of glory, it's hard to call what happens to the Sons of Perdition anything but a punishment.

From their perspective, it will be a blessing because they don't want to be anywhere near our Father in heaven.

They like what is evil, and they even call evil good, essentially hating who the saints of God love.

[JDave]

Ahab, try to see it as recognizing a possible paradox rather that showing who is right. You don't have to agree that God doesn't know about future facts, you just need to recognize why some people (i.e. almost everybody who seriously studies the issue) see a paradox with the combination of knowledge of future facts and the ability to choose otherwise.

Seeing the future, from our perspective, is to see something which hasn

[Brade]

Ahab, try to see it as recognizing a possible paradox rather that showing who is right. You don't have to agree that God doesn't know about future facts, you just need to recognize why some people (i.e. almost everybody who seriously studies the issue) see a paradox with the combination of knowledge of future facts and the ability to choose otherwise.

Seeing the future, from our perspective, is to see something which hasn

[Brade]

I am getting the feeling that I am acquiring some of this "foreknowledge" myself... I had the strangest feeling that you were going to say exactly what you have posted here.

Oh, so I take you had already read the Dialogue paper from which this story comes.

I am also wondering who Blake Ostler thinks he is? I mean it takes a lot of guts (or stupidity) to question the doctrinal understanding of an apostle of God.

I agree. And, it takes a measure of humility for an apostle of God to concede that he stepped into an area beyond his expertise and may have overstated the case in a way that, if true, might commit one to a contradiction.

I would also be interested to know if you have a documented reference of this or is this just an anecdote to bolster Ostler's ego or book sales? Or perhaps you have a published talk where Elder Maxwell reversed his position? Yes this is a CFR.

Lightbearer, I don't know if you'll ever read this since you suggest that you've abandoned this thread, but you seem to have missed the post I made not long after the post that you responded to by way of the quoted text above. Oddly, though, the response you made with the quoted text above came some 2 hours or so after the response I made where I expounded on my initial post about Elder Maxwell. I provided source information for my claims and somewhat amended my claims so as to be more in-line with the account as reported by Ostler with permission from Elder Maxwell.

My grandfather met with Elder Maxwell not long before his passing to discuss doctrinal matters and, from my grandfather's account of his experience, Elder Maxwell is, perhaps surprisingly, quite undogmatic about his beliefs. I say this because my grandfather's story is consistent with Ostler's experience with Maxwell. My grandfather hasn't revealed to me the actual content of their discussion, and, sadly, I won't be able to provide you with a further source for this claim in the case of a CFR.

I find it odd that on this board if you quote Bruce R. McConkie or JFS you get the proverbial "that's just his uninspired opinion as a man, not as a prophet, seer, and revelator" but when someone quotes someone like Olster, and don't get me wrong I am not trying to disrespect him in any way, I mean anyone can write a book, or get academic degrees and anyone can spin their own version of philosophy, but why must we accept their position as the Gospel truth, even though he really has no authority to speak for the Church!

Well, of course, nobody has to accept Ostler's positions about anything.

Furthermore who says that agency is the same thing as "libertarian free-will"?

Libertarians for one.

How do we even know this is in keeping with the doctrine of the Church?

That's a really good question. And, I suppose it's an open question to some extent. Although, I'm actually inclined to think that the orthodox doctrine-of-the-church view is compatibilism. That is to say that libertarian view of free will, as in the ability to do otherwise, is false, that free will exists and we have it, but it does not have anything at all to do with the ability to do otherwise, and that God does have perfect divine foreknowledge. I happen to think that that's the orthodox Mormon view, or should be the orthodox Mormon view. I also happen to reject it.

[Jason]

Unless you subscribe to the (probably also false doctrinal) view that Sons of Perdition are spiritually destroyed and reorganized into new beings. That would be a good thing for them.

I don't subscribe to that particular view.

And really, isn't destruction of the self still pretty much a punishment?

[Jason]

From their perspective, it will be a blessing because they don't want to be anywhere near our Father in heaven.

They like what is evil, and they even call evil good, essentially hating who the saints of God love.

I don't believe anyone really counts seperation from God as a blessing. They might have convinced themselves that they prefer seperation from the alternative of being subject to God, but I don't believe that they really love evil for its own sake. No one, in my opinion, can really love evil in any lasting sense.

[TOmNossor]

Ahab,

There have been philosophers who have embraced paradox boldly. They are comfortable saying:

1. Can a man draw a square circle?

2. Can a man guide his friend into the condition of being a married bachelor.

The answers are No!

But, if you replace

[TOmNossor]

I am also wondering who Blake Ostler thinks he is?

I hope to say more later, but Truman Madsen suggested Blake talk to Elder Maxwell. Truman Madsen I think was good friends with Elder Maxwell (in fact, I see much similarity in they way the write and talk). From this Madsen / Maxwell connection the Ostler discussion was initiated.

Charity, TOm