Determinism, Free Will, And God'S Omniscience

[Jeff K.]

The past and the future ARE functions of memory, not matter. And memory is also in the present and is the story we tell about our experience . . . it has very little to do with reality at times, more with perception. But it is a record. And I am still thinking a lot about the ideas of records, and I would say that we have records of past and future. But I'm not done thinking through this stuff.

Interesting, but an additional thought comes to mind, not to derail further, but, some scientists now feel that Gravity transcends time and is felt though multiple dimensions outside of timespace which may be why it often appears the weakest force in present time/space. This and gravitrons would give it the position of matter. Potentially making the future a position of matter.

[Nofear]

My favorite t-shirt says "Shrodinger's Cat is Dead" on the front, on the back "Shrodingers Cat is not Dead". Until we know and open the box, its both, and so the question of this discussion in a sense is reconciled until we in effect "open the box" in the next life.

In physics there is a fun concept called counterfactual definiteness (CFD). It is a concept that says given a certain state P1 (say I drop a rock) and this turns into state P2 (the rock falls), then when I recreate state P1 again, I can say with some definiteness that state P2 will occur. I know that when I drop a rock it will fall is a statement that asserts one's belief in counterfactual definiteness.

Another useful concept in physics is one of locality. This statement basic says that no casual effects propagate faster than the speed of light (in vacuum). For example, if some alien did something really bad to our sun, there is no possible or conceivable way that what the aliens did could effect the earth until 8.3 minutes later (the time it takes light to travel from the sun to the earth).

Part of the reason that they are interesting is that theoretical physicist John S. Bell created a theory (which has been subsequently experimentally verified many times over) that there is no quantum theory which can simultaneously obey counterfactual definiteness and locality. One or both of the tenets must be false if the theory is to conform to observable reality as described by quantum mechanics.

The Copenhagen interpretation chooses locality and rejects counterfactual definiteness. Almost all the quantum weirdness that is prevalent in the the popularization of quantum science stems from this. The whole Schrodinger's Cat thing is a thought experiment that arises from the rejection of CFD. But there are other interpretations of quantum theory which take the other tack, such as Bohmian mechanics (of which I am a fan*) which rejects locality and accepts CFD.

Interestingly enough, one can make a strong argument that a perfectly future omniscient entity is not compatible with a rejection of counterfactual definiteness. Couple that with the fact that if one doesn't think it takes God years and years** to hear and respond to one's prayers then that means a rejection of locality. Consequently, it is my opinion that Mormonism favors theories like Bohmian mechanics and disfavors others such as the Copenhagen interpretation.

Anyway, the free will debate is among the oldest of the recorded philosophical discourses. Yet despite all those millennia of discussion, precisely zero consensus has arisen from the ranks of humanity as to the source of (or even existence of) free will. Mormonism certainly has its voice but I suspect that the clarity of its voice, even among Mormons, is not yet sufficient on the topic to bring any kind of settlement to the issue, though it is possible it might narrow the discussion some.

* Part of this stems from my strict realism. In an imperfect way you can say that as Nofear's realism is to Bohmian mechanics, you can say mfbukowski's empiricism(ish-ness) is to the Copenhagen interpretation. Both interpretations can recreate all the other predictions of the other but philosophically the two theories are very distinct.

** This assumes, as I do, that God's spatial location is many lightyears away.

[Nofear]

Interesting, but an additional thought comes to mind, not to derail further, but, some scientists now feel that Gravity transcends time and is felt though multiple dimensions outside of timespace which may be why it often appears the weakest force in present time/space. This and gravitrons would give it the position of matter. Potentially making the future a position of matter.

Nitpick: such branes theories don't entail gravity transcending time -- gravitational waves would still propagate at the speed of light (in all dimensions). Not that the nit pick is relevant to the thrust of your argument.

[Lamanite]

In physics there is a fun concept called counterfactual definiteness (CFD). It is a concept that says given a certain state P1 (say I drop a rock) and this turns into state P2 (the rock falls), then when I recreate state P1 again, I can say with some definiteness that state P2 will occur. I know that when I drop a rock it will fall is a statement that asserts one's belief in counterfactual definiteness.

Another useful concept in physics is one of locality. This statement basic says that no casual effects propagate faster than the speed of light (in vacuum). For example, if some alien did something really bad to our sun, there is no possible or conceivable way that what the aliens did could effect the earth until 8.3 minutes later (the time it takes light to travel from the sun to the earth).

Part of the reason that they are interesting is that theoretical physicist John S. Bell created a theory (which has been subsequently experimentally verified many times over) that there is no quantum theory which can simultaneously obey counterfactual definiteness and locality. One or both of the tenets must be false if the theory is to conform to observable reality as described by quantum mechanics.

The Copenhagen interpretation chooses locality and rejects counterfactual definiteness. Almost all the quantum weirdness that is prevalent in the the popularization of quantum science stems from this. The whole Schrodinger's Cat thing is a thought experiment that arises from the rejection of CFD. But there are other interpretations of quantum theory which take the other tack, such as Bohmian mechanics (of which I am a fan*) which rejects locality and accepts CFD.

Interestingly enough, one can make a strong argument that a perfectly future omniscient entity is not compatible with a rejection of counterfactual definiteness. Couple that with the fact that if one doesn't think it takes God years and years** to hear and respond to one's prayers then that means a rejection of locality. Consequently, it is my opinion that Mormonism favors theories like Bohmian mechanics and disfavors others such as the Copenhagen interpretation.

Anyway, the free will debate is among the oldest of the recorded philosophical discourses. Yet despite all those millennia of discussion, precisely zero consensus has arisen from the ranks of humanity as to the source of (or even existence of) free will. Mormonism certainly has its voice but I suspect that the clarity of its voice, even among Mormons, is not yet sufficient on the topic to bring any kind of settlement to the issue, though it is possible it might narrow the discussion some.

* Part of this stems from my strict realism. In an imperfect way you can say that as Nofear's realism is to Bohmian mechanics, you can say mfbukowski's empiricism(ish-ness) is to the Copenhagen interpretation. Both interpretations can recreate all the other predictions of the other but philosophically the two theories are very distinct.

** This assumes, as I do, that God's spatial location is many lightyears away.

How would your thoughts take into account the principle of non- locality?

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Lamanite]

In physics there is a fun concept called counterfactual definiteness (CFD). It is a concept that says given a certain state P1 (say I drop a rock) and this turns into state P2 (the rock falls), then when I recreate state P1 again, I can say with some definiteness that state P2 will occur. I know that when I drop a rock it will fall is a statement that asserts one's belief in counterfactual definiteness.

Another useful concept in physics is one of locality. This statement basic says that no casual effects propagate faster than the speed of light (in vacuum). For example, if some alien did something really bad to our sun, there is no possible or conceivable way that what the aliens did could effect the earth until 8.3 minutes later (the time it takes light to travel from the sun to the earth).

Part of the reason that they are interesting is that theoretical physicist John S. Bell created a theory (which has been subsequently experimentally verified many times over) that there is no quantum theory which can simultaneously obey counterfactual definiteness and locality. One or both of the tenets must be false if the theory is to conform to observable reality as described by quantum mechanics.

The Copenhagen interpretation chooses locality and rejects counterfactual definiteness. Almost all the quantum weirdness that is prevalent in the the popularization of quantum science stems from this. The whole Schrodinger's Cat thing is a thought experiment that arises from the rejection of CFD. But there are other interpretations of quantum theory which take the other tack, such as Bohmian mechanics (of which I am a fan*) which rejects locality and accepts CFD.

Interestingly enough, one can make a strong argument that a perfectly future omniscient entity is not compatible with a rejection of counterfactual definiteness. Couple that with the fact that if one doesn't think it takes God years and years** to hear and respond to one's prayers then that means a rejection of locality. Consequently, it is my opinion that Mormonism favors theories like Bohmian mechanics and disfavors others such as the Copenhagen interpretation.

Anyway, the free will debate is among the oldest of the recorded philosophical discourses. Yet despite all those millennia of discussion, precisely zero consensus has arisen from the ranks of humanity as to the source of (or even existence of) free will. Mormonism certainly has its voice but I suspect that the clarity of its voice, even among Mormons, is not yet sufficient on the topic to bring any kind of settlement to the issue, though it is possible it might narrow the discussion some.

* Part of this stems from my strict realism. In an imperfect way you can say that as Nofear's realism is to Bohmian mechanics, you can say mfbukowski's empiricism(ish-ness) is to the Copenhagen interpretation. Both interpretations can recreate all the other predictions of the other but philosophically the two theories are very distinct.

** This assumes, as I do, that God's spatial location is many lightyears away.

Enter Spinoza....

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Jeff K.]

Nitpick: such branes theories don't entail gravity transcending time -- gravitational waves would still propagate at the speed of light (in all dimensions). Not that the nit pick is relevant to the thrust of your argument.

At the speed of light, but if they transcend time, in another dimension the speed of light may have no meaning, neither would distance or time.

[mfbukowski]

* Part of this stems from my strict realism. In an imperfect way you can say that as Nofear's realism is to Bohmian mechanics, you can say mfbukowski's empiricism(ish-ness) is to the Copenhagen interpretation. Both interpretations can recreate all the other predictions of the other but philosophically the two theories are very distinct.

Agreed, but it could be argued that the differences are just ways of saying the same thing. Of course that favors my position

[Nofear]

At the speed of light, but if they transcend time, in another dimension the speed of light may have no meaning, neither would distance or time.

Brane models use the same temporal dimension for all dimensions. We refer to what we know/experience as 3+1. A brane model would be 4+1. There really aren't any 4+2 or such models that are taken seriously. The whole "transcends time" stuff isn't well grounded in contemporary physics and not really even the speculative fringes of physics.

How would your thoughts take into account the principle of non- locality?

A classic example of a nonlocal quantum is the EPR paradox. However, in the Copenhagen interpretation, the principle of locality is still preserved as no superluminal casual influence arises from the nonlocal collapse of the spin states. Confusing, yes. See: wikipedia: locality in the EPR experiment.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 01 June 2011 - 01:48 PM, said:

At the speed of light, but if they transcend time, in another dimension the speed of light may have no meaning, neither would distance or time

.

Brane models use the same temporal dimension for all dimensions. We refer to what we know/experience as 3+1. A brane model would be 4+1. There really aren't any 4+2 or such models that are taken seriously. The whole "transcends time" stuff isn't well grounded in contemporary physics and not really even the speculative fringes of physics.

There is nothing to say that all dimensions have the same temporal dimensions, some could be pure forces (in which tachyons would exist, which is itself facinating). So I would say the theory is well grounded in string theory (which is itself either ebbing or rising in the scientific community depending on who and when you ask) and while brane models have their place they are also seen as being limited in their explanation. Of course even in a bosonic theory of many dimention

[cksalmon]

I don't have much time this evening to get into it, but suffice it to say that this is part of a much more comprehensive view of truth than is alluded to in that one line from the Stanford Encyclopedia.

Undoubtedly, but it’s quite a provocative statement considered in and of itself.

Pragmatists see "reality" as composed of experience- nothing is real which is outside of experience.

Of course, this is why I reject pragmatism. As you might imagine, I’m a thoroughgoing adherent to the correspondence theory of truth. I’m sure I don’t need to cite my side on that. It’s probably not hyperbole to say that it’s been the default position throughout written history.

In that sense, they have sometimes called themselves "radical empiricists". Science is true because it is "what works"- if you think of Kuhn, his views on science are similar to this- that we have changing paradigms of what is "true" according to what is observed and which paradigms are created out of the interpretation of our collective experience.

I would agree that consensus-driven paradigms can often determine the scope and nature of our inquiry and significantly influence our predispositions toward observable phenomena. But admitting such does not, in and of itself, necessitate that the truthfulness of a given proposition P is ever mind-dependent.

To illustrate, consider the following proposition: Joseph Smith was born on December 24, 1805. This is a truth claim about an historical event. It’s a rather trivial one in the grand scheme of things, but is nevertheless a truth claim. It also happens to be a truth claim about an historical even that no one alive today observed. Moreover, it is a unique truth claim about a historical event that no human can ever hope to observe again. Some people observed the event, to be sure. But they are not you and you are not them. So, it doesn’t appear that you have any warrant, on your view, to hold that the proposition “Joseph Smith was born on December 24, 1805” linguistically stakes out a chunk of historical reality in such a way that would render the proposition “Joseph Smith was born on December 22” as being a false statement just in case it fails to accurately describe an historical but completely unobservable event. Unobservable to you or anyone else alive, that is.

To adapt your conclusion, “The only thing we have to judge the ‘validity’ of [the proposition ‘Joseph Smith was born on December 24, 1805’] is the effect such [a belief has] in our lives.” It would be a hard sell, to my mind, to argue that believing the claim “Joseph Smith was born on December 24, 1805” has any significant impact or effect on your or my life whatsoever, on your view.

In short, what is true, is "what works" in creating scientific theories which allow us to do things- fly airplanes, send spacecrafts to Mars, and cure disease, etc.

But, achieving flight in an aerial vehicle is not, fundamentally, a function of created scientific theories “which allow us to do things.” Achieving flight in an aerial vehicle is brought about by the application of various mind-independent mathematical equations. You might reply: Only minds formulate mathematical equations. True enough. But no human mind and no scientific theory ever formulated the physical properties back of the equations. And no scientific theory which doesn’t conform itself to the rigid mind-independent physical properties of the world would ever achieve take off. Planes only fly when scientific theory accurately conforms itself to what is actually true about such things as lift, drag, energy, thrust, etc.

In religious belief, claims about the objective status of God cannot be proven, and so must be judged by their effects in our lives in giving our lives meaning, etc. In other words, the only experience we have in religious matters is religious experience, so in at least JUDGING THE BELIEFS of religion, (not the objective status of religious truth claims) the only criterion we have to judge one belief from another is which "works" best in explaining religious experience.

But, the statement “Jesus rose bodily from the dead” is simultaneously a religious truth claim and an historical truth claim.

The statement “Joseph encountered the Father and Jesus in the grove” is simultaneously a religious truth claim and an historical truth claim.

Again- experience is what is real- since there is no OBJECTIVE evidence for religious truth claims, nor can there be, the only thing we have to judge the "validity" of religious experience is the effect such experiences have in our lives.

So what is being discussed is not the "reality" of God, - that cannot be discussed because it is beyond being directly experienced objectively- but what the effects BELIEF in God has in our lives.

But, my questions were not about your subjective religious experience regarding a generic belief in God and how such a subjective belief might favorably impact your life experience. They were about specific historical truth claims. On your view, it would seem, there is “no OBJECTIVE evidence” that Joseph Smith was born on December 24, 1805, either, since you didn’t observationally experience his birth. Religious truth claims are often also historical truth claims. The claim that Joseph Smith was born on December 24, 1805 can’t be counted a religious truth claim, but it is certainly an historical one.

c

[cksalmon]

Let me very briefly answer this directly since it parallels a thread recently closed in which this exact argument was made, and never fully responded to before the thread was locked.

Those "propositional truth claims" you reference are not in anyway objectively provable. They are not scientific truths; the only way to judge their utility whatsoever is not by their objective "truth" but by the effects such BELIEFS have in our lives.

This does NOT mean they are not "objectively true"- just that their truth cannot be determined that way.

I'm really not trying to derail your thread, M. But this is topic of great interest to me.

I'm certainly not arguing that historical truth claims are necessary truths. I am arguing that the claim "Joseph Smith was born on December 24, 1805" is a propositional truth claim about an historical event.

I'm wondering if you really believe that such a claim is not in anyway objectively provable and, further, how you would judge the utility of such a truth claim by the effect said belief has in your life.

c

[Maidservant]

Interesting, but an additional thought comes to mind, not to derail further, but, some scientists now feel that Gravity transcends time and is felt though multiple dimensions outside of timespace which may be why it often appears the weakest force in present time/space. This and gravitrons would give it the position of matter. Potentially making the future a position of matter.

Vewwy, vewwy interesting . . . hmmm, shall have to learn and think more . . .

[Mudcat]

Most of us Mormons will concede that Man is a free creature; free to act and think as he so desires. And I think most Mormons will concede the fact that God is omniscient, without feeling the need to add qualifiers.

Hi Lamanite,

Good to see you about. Luv ya bro.

Bold mine, I dunno of any LDS I have ever talked about the topic of omniscience with, that qualifiers weren't added. You may be the exception to that.

Most of us understand the inherent conflict in accepting both statements of fact as 100% true.

I would disagree here. Based on past discourse with LDS, I would be of the mind that LDS err on the side of free will and support a "conditional" sort of omniscience.

For those that don't accept these statements of fact at face value, how do you reconcile the two?

I'd be more curious to know how an LDS that does accept the notion of man having free will and God having total omniscience, would reconcile the two without adding some sort of qualifier?

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[mfbukowski]

CK- Thanks for your response- I see there are some serious misunderstandings of my positions in your posts, which I will be glad to explain because I figure if you are misunderstanding me, others must be really in the fog! So in the off chance someone actually cares, I will go into some detail.

Let me be as direct as I can be in explaing this world-view which I have largely derived from others like James and Dewey and linguistic constructivists - because I believe that once understood, the world view is flawless- one cannot argue against it- you may disagree that it is correct, but I think it is totally consistent.

The entire thing is based on the central notion that everything we see, everything we know is based on our- and other human's perceptions, which are totally societally "programmed" by our culture and our language- to the point where all that we can know about what is called "reality" is filtered through these societal "glasses" we wear- and any kind of reality other than what we have been programmed to see is meaningless- because we can only speak about it in language, and to do so automatically "puts on those glasses"- those societal filters which create / organize all that we can know. One could therefore say that all we can see or know or speak about is in some sense a "human construction"

Such constructions are in two major categories- those perceptions we personally see and feel ourselves- "subjective" - and those which we share through language, and all agree on- "objective". If I tell you that my knee hurts- you cannot look into my head and see if I am lying or not. THAT is the essence of a "subjective" perception. On the other hand, if we both look at a car and say "That is a black Mercedes"- and we agree- that is an "objective" perception or experience; and for the moment I am using "perception" and "experience" interchangeably.

Of course, this is why I reject pragmatism. As you might imagine, I’m a thoroughgoing adherent to the correspondence theory of truth. I’m sure I don’t need to cite my side on that. It’s probably not hyperbole to say that it’s been the default position throughout written history.

Agreed- and of course I think you are wrong to take that historic position.

I would agree that consensus-driven paradigms can often determine the scope and nature of our inquiry and significantly influence our predispositions toward observable phenomena. But admitting such does not, in and of itself, necessitate that the truthfulness of a given proposition P is ever mind-dependent.

To illustrate, consider the following proposition: Joseph Smith was born on December 24, 1805. This is a truth claim about an historical event. It’s a rather trivial one in the grand scheme of things, but is nevertheless a truth claim. It also happens to be a truth claim about an historical even that no one alive today observed. Moreover, it is a unique truth claim about a historical event that no human can ever hope to observe again. Some people observed the event, to be sure. But they are not you and you are not them. So, it doesn’t appear that you have any warrant, on your view, to hold that the proposition “Joseph Smith was born on December 24, 1805” linguistically stakes out a chunk of historical reality in such a way that would render the proposition “Joseph Smith was born on December 22” as being a false statement just in case it fails to accurately describe an historical but completely unobservable event. Unobservable to you or anyone else alive, that is.

Disagree. I am not saying that because I did not see Joseph being born, that it is not an "objective truth", any more than I would say that I don't believe in Antarctica because I have never been there. The existence of objective truth is based on linguistic understanding of what others have observed and attested to- yet it is in some sense "culturally created"- but we all agree on "facts" because we all agree on the experiences which create them.

The "fact" that Joseph Smith was born on a certain date requires that I understand what "December 24, 1805" means - that we agree on the calendaring system, who the person named "Joseph Smith" was, what "being born" is, and an understanding of the language of English in which that "fact" is linguistically expressed. Without that shared culture there IS no "fact"- we have agreed culturally, in a sense, to put all those definitions of "reality" together to CREATE what we agree is a "fact". It is human society, and more specifically American English culture which makes those utterances- or letters in a sentence INTO what we call a "fact" and the "fact" would not exist without the culture.

No, I did not see the event- it is NOT a "subjective" event- like being hungry or being in love- it is "objective". It is not an event MY MIND created, but an event that CULTURE CREATED. You may believe in "correspondence" but there IS nothing to "correspond " to- except what we all agree "exists".

To adapt your conclusion, “The only thing we have to judge the ‘validity’ of [the proposition ‘Joseph Smith was born on December 24, 1805’] is the effect such [a belief has] in our lives.” It would be a hard sell, to my mind, to argue that believing the claim “Joseph Smith was born on December 24, 1805” has any significant impact or effect on your or my life whatsoever, on your view.

To clarify, this is a confusion in what I am saying. I agree that it has no significant impact on my life- but I did not mean to imply that it did. It is not a "subjective" experience that Joseph was born on this day- it is "objective" which means the data is "out there" in the culture for everyone to examine and agree or disagree on. Suppose there is an error in the birth certificate - that could be objectively discovered on the basis of evidence- in other words, another "objective" fact would modify the earlier objective fact of Joseph's birth date.

But, achieving flight in an aerial vehicle is not, fundamentally, a function of created scientific theories “which allow us to do things.” Achieving flight in an aerial vehicle is brought about by the application of various mind-independent mathematical equations. You might reply: Only minds formulate mathematical equations. True enough. But no human mind and no scientific theory ever formulated the physical properties back of the equations. And no scientific theory which doesn’t conform itself to the rigid mind-independent physical properties of the world would ever achieve take off. Planes only fly when scientific theory accurately conforms itself to what is actually true about such things as lift, drag, energy, thrust, etc.

There is no reason to postulate anything outside of the fact that experience (objective experience) shows that math "works". Why or how it works is unknowable literally. All we have are mathematical principles, which we use, and objective, empirical, observable experiences verified by all mankind show that they do work in fact. THAT is all we "really" know. Asking why they work is like asking why the universe exists- no one knows, it just does, and they just "work"

There are no "physical properties back of the equations" we can know about. We define them by experience. If I put water on a fire, and put a tube with some mercury into the water, , when the water has bubbles in it, we will ("call"/define, create) that 100 degrees (Celsius) . We have defined a "fact" - created it- based on an objective experience- one which eveyone can observe and do, and agree on. Same for the speed of light- we define it experientially; there are regularities in our objective experiences, and we define those in terms of logic and math. We are wired to do so, we have evolved to do so because such principles work. If what we call "math" did NOT work- it would not exist. It is how we define those regularities in our experiences.

But, the statement “Jesus rose bodily from the dead” is simultaneously a religious truth claim and an historical truth claim.

The statement “Joseph encountered the Father and Jesus in the grove” is simultaneously a religious truth claim and an historical truth claim.

Yes they are. So? The question is how each is to be verified. Each claim WOULD be verified objectively- ie by witnesses if possible- but both are clouded by whether or not such witnesses can be found- so objectively each is probably not possible to ever verify- objectively. The only possible way such alleged "facts" can be "verified" is NOT through any kind of objective verification. Yet we can believe such things without objective verification,("on faith") and find that the BELIEF - not the "fact" - the BELIEF can be evaluated subjectively and shown "in our heart" to give us peace, and to cause us to act in certain ways, and give meaning to our lives.

And THAT the belief gives us peace and meaning is a "fact" which is "true". One even might prove that objectively- citing changes in people's lives for example- but the main "proof" is totally subjective- "believing this makes me feel thus and so"; that is essentially what we call a "testimony".

But, my questions were not about your subjective religious experience regarding a generic belief in God and how such a subjective belief might favorably impact your life experience. They were about specific historical truth claims. On your view, it would seem, there is “no OBJECTIVE evidence” that Joseph Smith was born on December 24, 1805, either, since you didn’t observationally experience his birth. Religious truth claims are often also historical truth claims. The claim that Joseph Smith was born on December 24, 1805 can’t be counted a religious truth claim, but it is certainly an historical one.

Hopefully by this point, you can see how this confuses my position. There IS "objective evidence" regardless of my subjective experience. Subjectively I find that the BELIEF that Jesus is the Christ and that he rose from the dead gives my life incredible meaning, even though the OBJECTIVE evidence for the resurrection is tenuous- based on the testimonies which by this point are arguably more legend than anything else- though in principle it is also a historic event.

[mfbukowski]

I'd be more curious to know how an LDS that does accept the notion of man having free will and God having total omniscience, would reconcile the two without adding some sort of qualifier?

I would be in that category- but I think we are speaking different languages, or at least different language games.

[Mudcat]

I would be in that category- but I think we are speaking different languages, or at least different language games.

It might be the case, I dunno really.

My comment was more observational than a criticism. I think any, self included, who hold to the two notions of God's omniscience and man's free agency all have to work with through the mechanics of that to some degree.

Most LDS I have talked with about omniscience seem to lean toward a direction that though God is fully omniscient, he chooses to limit or suspend this to some degree for the preservation of man's agency. Or at least that is my general interpretation of several discussions that have occurred over time.

To me the notion of God limiting an aspect of Himself seems like a qualifier of sorts.

You may have a different take on it altogether.

[mfbukowski]

To me the notion of God limiting an aspect of Himself seems like a qualifier of sorts.

You may have a different take on it altogether.

Yes, I think I do.

[Mansquatch]

Why is there so much resistance to us having a different "Temporal" existence from God's "Eternal" existence? Maybe because we don't understand it and we try to fit it into our understanding. It may be as shocking to find out that, although not omniscient, we were once not subject to time and temporal things before this life. The difference in the nature of God's existence and our current existence does not nullify our free will.

[cksalmon]

Hopefully by this point, you can see how this confuses my position. There IS "objective evidence" regardless of my subjective experience. Subjectively I find that the BELIEF that Jesus is the Christ and that he rose from the dead gives my life incredible meaning, even though the OBJECTIVE evidence for the resurrection is tenuous- based on the testimonies which by this point are arguably more legend than anything else- though in principle it is also a historic event.

Your response was quite helpful, M. I appreciate the effort to clear up my misunderstanding(s). You reference Dewey and James, but some of what you write sounds like nothing so much as Rorty's brand of antirealism--at least if I'm remembering him clearly. I disagree with you, profoundly and foundationally, if you'll allow the term.

I don't believe that Christian theism really allows for an antirealist approach to truth, but I can see that LDS theism doesn't rule it out. (Not a sectarian swipe; I trust you take my meaning.) Why that is true would be an interesting discussion.

Your response raised some questions for me along those lines, and I hope to pursue them (I'd imagine in a separate thread), when time allows.

c

[HeatherAnn]

Most of us Mormons will concede that Man is a free creature; free to act and think as he so desires. And I think most Mormons will concede the fact that God is omniscient, without feeling the need to add qualifiers. Most of us understand the inherent conflict in accepting both statements of fact as 100% true. For those that don't accept these statements of fact at face value, how do you reconcile the two?

I see it like God got the ball rolling around a big funnel - knowing that the rough-around-the edges ball will eventually end up going down the intended place, because in the process, it will be made more smooth, to do so. What is in our temporary will is time - how long we take to learn & progress.

God seems to have given us such a paradox... the need of both good & evil (opposition to appreciate), an eternal spirit with a temporary carnal side - one sees the big picture, the other is always striving but never quite arriving.

Isn't spirituality, especially the celestial type - eternal progression?

So, is God eternally progressing right along (or ahead of) us?

[etana]

Hi Lamanite,

Good to see you about. Luv ya bro.

Bold mine, I dunno of any LDS I have ever talked about the topic of omniscience with, that qualifiers weren't added. You may be the exception to that.

I would disagree here. Based on past discourse with LDS, I would be of the mind that LDS err on the side of free will and support a "conditional" sort of omniscience.

I'd be more curious to know how an LDS that does accept the notion of man having free will and God having total omniscience, would reconcile the two without adding some sort of qualifier?

Respectfully,

Mudcat

I must be another exception as i don't see a conflict and generally avoid applying any of my limited mortal qualifiers to God's claimed attributes.

I do understand the conflict that some see, but that requires assumptions based on our very limited experience. Thus the standard argument, as i understand it, is that God's foreknowledge combined with the fact that He is infallible (or would not be God--not sure why this doesn't also apply to his omniscience for some LDS)) requires our future choices to be sealed to what He saw.

The thing many miss is that for perfect foreknowledge to exist one must accept that information flows backward in time which in turn allows the reverse causality of our choices influencing what God saw and not the other way around.

Therefor with my assumptions, you can't assume foreknowledge without also enabling free will.

[mfbukowski]

Your response was quite helpful, M. I appreciate the effort to clear up my misunderstanding(s). You reference Dewey and James, but some of what you write sounds like nothing so much as Rorty's brand of antirealism--at least if I'm remembering him clearly. I disagree with you, profoundly and foundationally, if you'll allow the term.

I don't believe that Christian theism really allows for an antirealist approach to truth, but I can see that LDS theism doesn't rule it out. (Not a sectarian swipe; I trust you take my meaning.) Why that is true would be an interesting discussion.

Your response raised some questions for me along those lines, and I hope to pursue them (I'd imagine in a separate thread), when time allows.

c

Well I am glad progress was made. I do like Rorty a lot actually, but definitely differ with him on some fundamental issues. It is kind of funny actually that you say that because I was taken to task by a denizen of the trailer park for mentioning that I was close to Rorty on some issues, since of course he was a militant atheist. But of course so was I, once! And in fact, it was seeing that LDS theism does not rule out such a view which made me feel philosophically comfortable enough in LDS shoes to allow myself to accept revelations for what they were (I now believe).

But I would love a chance to discuss it and re-examine what are now almost axioms to me after thinking this way for 40 years or so!

And I agree with you about "antirealism", but true to form, my reply might be that all we need to do is re-define what you mean by "antirealism"! Labels are always misleading, and I am dismayed by the present tendency in University courses to rely on textbook labels when in fact each philosopher is an individual with nuances in their thinking which defy labels.

Looking forward to further discussions!

[mfbukowski]

I see it like God got the ball rolling around a big funnel - knowing that the rough-around-the edges ball will eventually end up going down the intended place, because in the process, it will be made more smooth, to do so. What is in our temporary will is time - how long we take to learn & progress.

God seems to have given us such a paradox... the need of both good & evil (opposition to appreciate), an eternal spirit with a temporary carnal side - one sees the big picture, the other is always striving but never quite arriving.

Isn't spirituality, especially the celestial type - eternal progression?

So, is God eternally progressing right along (or ahead of) us?

Great comment- welcome! And yes, I think you are right about eternal progression

[cksalmon]

The thing many miss is that for perfect foreknowledge to exist one must accept that information flows backward in time which in turn allows the reverse causality of our choices influencing what God saw and not the other way around.

I see no need to accept that, etana. In fact, it strikes me as philosophical hooey. Ethereal information about our future actions propogates backward in time and causally determines God's prior knowledge of those future actions--and not the other way around? That's the same as saying God doesn't know what we're going to do until/after we do it.

Therefor with my assumptions, you can't assume foreknowledge without also enabling free will.

It appears to be an untenable assumption. I suggest you abandon it.

[cksalmon]

Well I am glad progress was made. I do like Rorty a lot actually, but definitely differ with him on some fundamental issues. It is kind of funny actually that you say that because I was taken to task by a denizen of the trailer park for mentioning that I was close to Rorty on some issues, since of course he was a militant atheist.

You're unlikely to catch that sort of flak from me, as I'm much closer to, say, a Daniel Dennett on determinism than I am to John Wesley. Philosophy makes for strange bedfellows, sometimes. It all depends upon the connections one makes with a larger worldview.

Looking forward to further discussions!

Sure. Me, too.