Is God Omniscient?

[Deborah]

So, which premise precisely did you believe was false in that argument?

It seemed to be saying that if God knows beforehand then there can't be free will. I disagree with that.

Is that what the scripture says - God knew the outcome beforehand?

It doesn't say he didn't and explains why he chased Jonah to do what he was told.

[Log]

It seemed to be saying that if God knows beforehand then there can't be free will. I disagree with that.

The conclusion is necessarily true if the premises are true. Which of the premises do you think are incorrect, and why?

It doesn't say he didn't and explains why he chased Jonah to do what he was told.

Do you agree there are scriptures which say God doesn't, or didn't, know an outcome beforehand?

[Deborah]

Do you agree there are scriptures which say God doesn't, or didn't, know an outcome beforehand?

No. I agree that God in dealing with man will act as if he doesn't know the outcome so that man can truly be free to choose. Alma 13:3 is interesting in this regard:

And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such.

[Log]

No. I agree that God in dealing with man will act as if he doesn't know the outcome so that man can truly be free to choose. Alma 13:3 is interesting in this regard:

Emphasis added.

Anyways, which premise did you believe was false, and why?

[Deborah]

Anyways, which premise did you believe was false, and why?

I thought I already did but then why don't you tell me why you are so adamant that these ideas be accepted.

[Log]

I thought I already did but then why don't you tell me why you are so adamant that these ideas be accepted.

I'm not adamant, but also you did not tell me which premise was false; you said you objected to the conclusion.

Since the conclusion must be true if the premises are true, which premise do you hold to be false?

[wenglund]

Let me put it this way: if all of my choices are known before the fact, then I do not have libertarian free will.

I have mentioned this before, but I don't believe that free will (libertarian or otherwise) is negated by foreknowledge any more than it is negated by past-knowledge.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Log]

I have mentioned this before, but I don't believe that free will (libertarian or otherwise) is negated by foreknowledge any more than it is negated by past-knowledge.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Then, like I have with Deborah, I invite you to show which of the premises of the argument Ostler makes are false.

[asbestosman]

This conceptual model undoubtedly is the product of operations in an axiomatic system (it's an open question as to whether that system is self-referential, but for fun, let's assume it is).

Is it a formal axiomatic system of the type that satisfies Godel's theorem? I have my doubts. The more I've studied Godel's theorem the more I'm inclined to agree with Douglas Hofstadter. That, however, won't rescue us from the halting problem. I don't know enough about hypercomputers to say whether any of them escape the halting problem for hypercomputers as powerful as they are. Perhaps they can escape it by avoiding self-reference, but if you avoid self-reference doesn't that already imply that you can't understand yourself? Maybe the semantic meaning of understand in that sense is as contrived as power is when asking whether an omnipotent being can create a boulder so big he himself could not move it.

[Mudcat]

From your citation Log.

The modern argument showing that free will is not compatible with foreknowledge is based on the fixity of the past or, in other words, the principle that no person can have power to do anything which entails that God has not always believed what God has in fact always believed. Suppose that God has always believed that I will rob a 7-Eleven at a certain time t. My refraining from robbing the 7-Eleven at time t certainly entails that God has not always believed that I will rob at t. Because God has always believed that I will rob the 7-Eleven at t, I cannot have the power to refrain from robbing, since this power would entail power to change God's past beliefs. No person has the power to alter the past. Yet to be free with respect to whether I rob, I must have power to refrain from robbing the 7-Eleven at t. It follows that either God does not have foreknowledge or I am not free.¹⁵

I think the argument is flawed by playing on improperly defined terms. Freedom seems to simply be defined as the ability to act contrary to God's foreknowledge. This isn't what I think most people think freedom of the will actually is.

It asserts that if God knows what some agent will do, then that agent is not free because it won't do anything but what God knows it will do. The argument places God's foreknowledge as the causal mechanism for the agent. But the argument fails to create any reasonable presentation that such foreknowledge actually is a causal mechanism.

If we were to have a candid discussion with a person that robs a 7-Eleven at a specific time, we would likely discover they do so for their own self determined reasons. I am quite doubtful if they were brought to trial a defense lawyer would posit God's foreknowledge as the real culprit.

Edited March 22, 2012 by Mudcat

[Deborah]

It asserts that if God knows what some agent will do, then that agent is not free because it won't do anything but what God knows it will do. The argument places God's foreknowledge as the causal mechanism for the agent. But the argument fails to create any reasonable presentation that such foreknowledge actually is a causal mechanism.

Exactly.

[Zeta-Flux]

Then, like I have with Deborah, I invite you to show which of the premises of the argument Ostler makes are false.

My current personal preference is the assumption of linear causality. If we are going to assume that there is a God knows the future because He sees it, then we are claiming the future affects the past. (I'm also not a fan of "infallibility" nor "libertarian free will". But those are secondary considerations, in my opinion, with respect to Ostler's argument against foreknowledge.)

Edited March 22, 2012 by Zeta-Flux

[Zeta-Flux]

Mudcat and Deborah,

Ostler's argument is a bit more complicated than that. It isn't merely God's foreknowledge which is the causal agent (which falls into the modal fallacy, which you both seem to understand quite well) but rather that knowledge in conjunction with a few other assumptions (about the nature of the universe and the nature of freedom). I'll try to look up the formal version I found of Ostler's argument. It is quite intriguing.

[Mudcat]

Mudcat and Deborah,

Ostler's argument is a bit more complicated than that. It isn't merely God's foreknowledge which is the causal agent (which falls into the modal fallacy, which you both seem to understand quite well) but rather that knowledge in conjunction with a few other assumptions (about the nature of the universe and the nature of freedom). I'll try to look up the formal version I found of Ostler's argument. It is quite intriguing.

Please do if possible, I would be interested in seeing it.

[zerinus]

Let me put it this way: if all of my choices are known before the fact, then I do not have libertarian free will.

Does not logically follow. You can be acting according to your freewill, and still your actions be known in the future.

The Bible supports the notion that choices are, at times, not known before the fact. Zakuska mentioned one such example, as well as the lack of knowledge God has of the activities in Sodom. Others exist.

Bad scripture exegesis. God knew a thousand years in advance that Martin Harris would lose part of the translated pages, and put in place contingency arrangements so His plan would not fail.

To follow Vox, is God lying when he says he doesn't know?

God has a way of talking to man as man, although He is God, and already knows the answer to all questions before He asks them.

[CV75]

Does not logically follow. You can be acting according to your freewill, and still your actions be known in the future.

Bad scripture exegesis. God knew a thousand years in advance that Martin Harris would lose part of the translated pages, and put in place contingency arrangements so His plan would not fail.

God has a way of talking to man as man, although He is God, and already knows the answer to all questions before He asks them.

Do you see any way that God expands in knowledge, such as when He generates new exalted offspring and they in turn generate their own? Or, when in using faith in the creation process, He generates and experiences new knowledge with the realization of the end of that faith?

I think this is different than seeing the future that His children later enact in a temporal, mortal plane, no matter how many thousands of years are involved.

I also think this is different than knowing the thoughts and intents of our heart, what we need before we ask, inspiring us what to ask for, and reasoning with us as a Man.

He applies His faith and agency to gain knowledge, as we do, but He does it in an eternal sphere while we currently do it as part of our temporal/mortal probation.

[zerinus]

Do you agree that if God is applying that reasoning, then God does not know the outcome beforehand?

No.

[zerinus]

Do you see any way that God expands in knowledge, such as when He generates new exalted offspring and they in turn generate their own? Or, when in using faith in the creation process, He generates and experiences new knowledge with the realization of the end of that faith?

I think this is different than seeing the future that His children later enact in a temporal, mortal plane, no matter how many thousands of years are involved.

I also think this is different than knowing the thoughts and intents of our heart, what we need before we ask, inspiring us what to ask for, and reasoning with us as a Man.

He applies His faith and agency to gain knowledge, as we do, but He does it in an eternal sphere while we currently do it as part of our temporal/mortal probation.

Your statements do not ring true based on what God has already revealed. I can only go by what God has already revealed, and they are unequivocal that God has all knowledge past, present, and future; and that "he knoweth all things, and there is not anything save he knows it" (2 Nephi 9:20).

[zerinus]

A teacher hands out a test knowing all the answers.

A teacher tests his students in faith that he has prepared them to succeed to the next level, and indeed he has. He still knows all the answers.

The students that take the test in faith are those that apply the teacher’s shared and succeed to the next level. The students that take the test without applying the teacher’s shared knowledge do not succeed to the next level. He still knows all the answers but does not predict who else will apply them correctly to the test.

So a teacher does not know what his students do with his preparation of them until they finish taking the test, but he still knows all the answers.

Likewise, I believe God knows all the answers to the test He gives to us. He tests us in faith that He has given us all we need to succeed to become one with Him. We are taking the test, some of us with faith in God and some of us without faith in Him. God applies faith according to His knowledge (just as we do) to create, and thereby gains knowledge of His expanding creations, which first and foremost are us, His children.

I think a review of how the word “knowledge” as used in the scriptures, particularly in Doctrine and Covenants, shows that this is the case.

One scriptural definition of knowledge (which can be labeled “the knowledge of the Lord” (D&C 84:19 & 98; 101:25; 107:31; and 130:19), is very spiritual in nature (as in D&C 121: 26, 33 and 42 – “pure knowledge… from heaven”), and which I think serves as the basis of all other definitions that we can use for the term "knowledge" (which are also used throughout the scriptures), is D&C 93:24 & 30.

This reference shows that knowledge is more than knowledge of the truth. It is a component of truth (and therefore existence) itself. It is the experience of existence, which in perfection by virtue of agency is being God Himself. Where a) truth is knowledge (of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come) and acts for itself (agency), and b) where intelligence (the light of truth, or the light of knowledge) also acts for itself, c) truth, intelligence, knowledge and agency define existence.

We might as well ask if God is all-existing.

I am not sure I am understanding the meaning you are trying to convey here; but if it is meant to imply that we are like the students sitting an exam, while God the examiner has done all he needs to do to enable us pass that test, but doesn't know who will pass and who won't; then I disagree with you. It contradicts what God has revealed about the foreknowledge of God.

[zerinus]

. . . If we are going to assume that there is a God knows the future because He sees it, then we are claiming the future affects the past. . . .

That is an interesting observation. According to the Book of Mormon, the past is affected by the future! God, because of His foreknowledge, is able to take certain actions in the past (i.e. before the "future" has arrived), so as to alter the course of events in the future to His own advantage--thus effectively making the future affect the past--and the past affect the future--to achieve His aims.

Edited March 23, 2012 by zerinus

[Zeta-Flux]

That is an interesting observation. According to the Book of Mormon, the past is affected by the future! God, because of His foreknowledge, is able to take certain actions in the past (i.e. before the "future" has arrived) so as to alter the course of events in the future to His own advantage--thus effectively making the future affect the past--and the past affect the future--to achieve His aims.

Exactly. Besides which, what other purpose would foreknowledge serve except to affect the past?

Your statements do not ring true based on what God has already revealed. I can only go by what God has already revealed, and they are unequivocal that God has all knowledge past, present, and future; and that "he knoweth all things, and there is not anything save he knows it" (2 Nephi 9:20).

While I agree with your basic assertion (that God knows all things) and I love that scripture, I also think that Alma 7:12-13 has something to say on this topic.

-----------

Here is Blake Ostler's argument, put into my own words (so he may take exception to some of the ways that I have phrased things).

(1) It is true, today (Nephi's time), that sometime in the future (at least 600 years) Christ will freely atone for our sins. (Weak form of omnitemporality of truth)

(2) God knows that Christ will atone for our sins in the future, and this knowledge is not mistaken. (Foreknowledge)

(3) God tells Nephi that Christ will freely atone for our sins. (Assumption)

(4) It is not within anyone's power to change the past. (Assumption: Fixed Past)

(5) It will not be within Christ's power to do anything that will change what God told Nephi. (By 4)

(6) Therefore, Christ will not have the power to not atone for our sins (From 2, 3 and 5)

(7) Free will entails that I have the power to sin or to refrain from sinning. (Assumption: libertarian free will)

(8] Christ didn't have free will in His choice to atone. (from 6 and 7)

(9) Contradiction. (1 and 8 )

Edited March 23, 2012 by Zeta-Flux

[DarkScythe]

God has fore knowledge and always a back up plan for everything and everyone. Also I do think that God personally trained Christ so he will be strong enough to be worthy of the Title of Savior. I do think that we all train to a point to be in the position for what ever the purpose may be.

So all of the prophets wanted to be prophets and Jesus wanted to be the Christ. Thus they became what they wanted to be. And I can't claim why they did or what some people are in their position in the world today, tomorrow or yesterday.

[altersteve]

My opinion is that God knows all that can be known. He knows all the possible choices we can make, and everything that could possibly happen to us, based on where we are right now, and that's why He sends us promptings with the Spirit. If God knew we were going to make the wrong choice, then why would His Spirit prompt us to do the opposite? It doesn't make any sense.

[zerinus]

Here is Blake Ostler's argument, put into my own words (so he may take exception to some of the ways that I have phrased things).

I am not sure if that argument is valid. Let's examine it in more detail.

(1) It is true, today (Nephi's time), that sometime in the future (at least 600 years) Christ will freely atone for our sins. (Weak form of omnitemporality of truth)

Agreed. Jesus was the "lamb slain from the foundation of the world". His Atonement (and its successful outcome) was known in eternity, long before Nephi's time.

(2) God knows that Christ will atone for our sins in the future. (Foreknowledge)

Agreed. See above.

(3) God tells Nephi that Christ will freely atone for our sins. (Assumption)

True.

(4) God does not lie. (Assumption on the nature of God)

True that God does not lie; but if the Atonement had failed, it does not necessarily mean that God had lied. It could mean that His system was not perfect. It could mean that He in fact was not perfect. It could mean that God could fail.

(5) It is not within anyone's power to change the past. (Assumption: Fixed Past)

Agreed.

(6) It will not be within Christ's power to do anything that will change what God told Nephi. (By 5)

Agreed.

(7) Therefore, Christ will not have the power to not atone for our sins (From 3, 4, and 6)

Disagree! That conclusion does not logically follow from the given premises.

(8 ) Free will entails that I have the power to sin or to refrain from sinning. (Assumption: libertarian free will)

Not necessarily accurate, but I will agree.

(9) Christ didn't have free will in His choice to atone. (from 7 and 8 )

Wrong! See 7.

(10) Contradiction. (1 and 9)

Not true!

Edited March 23, 2012 by zerinus

[Log]

The valid, and I believe sound, argument to show that foreknowledge is incompatible with free will is as follows:

1. It has always been true that I will sin tomorrow. (Assumption: Omnitemporality of Truth).

2. It is impossible that God should hold a false belief or fail to know any truth (Assumption: Infallible Foreknowledge).

3. God has always believed that I will sin tomorrow (from 1 and 2).

4. If God has always believed a certain thing, then it is not in anyone's power to do anything which entails that God has not always believed that thing (Assumption: Fixed Past).

5. It is not in my power to do anything that entails that God has not always believed that I will sin tomorrow (from 3 and 4).

6. That I refrain from sinning tomorrow entails that God has not always believed that I will sin tomorrow (necessary truth and from 2; Principle of Transfer of Powerlessness).

7. Therefore, it is not in my power to refrain from sinning tomorrow (from 5 and 6).

8. If I act freely when I sin tomorrow, then I also have it within my power to refrain from sinning (assumption libertarian free will).

9. Therefore, I do not act freely when I sin tomorrow (from 7 and

.

It seems most of you who disagree with the conclusion cannot point out which premise is false, and why.

Now, if you deny that men have libertarian free will, you open up another can of worms, such as the justice of punishing someone for doing something when they had no power to do otherwise (for starters).

Edited March 23, 2012 by Log