How Complete Is God'S Foreknowledge?

[TOmNossor]

"God knows all" says it all.

God cannot know "all possible future actions to the billions upon billions of forking paths AND the probabilities of each path", and yet not know which path each person takes throughout their immortal lives. Just because God knows it, does not in any degree mean that God did it and the person in question did not choose. Knowledge is not action or responsibility for another's action.

I mentioned the existence of Libertarian Free Will, LFW.

There are those who do not believe LFW exists. They believe that every action is DETERMINED by the inputs into those actions. These inputs can be people who taught us 10 years ago, people who challenge us in the moment of decision, and the baseball in our hand at the moment of decision (or any number of things). But the totality of inputs processed through the totality of who we are produces a SINGLE decision.

The issue as I am framing it (especially for the LDS) is not “does God cause my choices.” A LDS can consistently believe that Eternal Intelligences uncreated by God proceed through a pre-determined (100% deterministic) path to an end. Inputs into this path come from the “character” of the individual Eternal Intelligence AND from God putting this individual into a family with two parents, one sister, and a dog. God does not choose how I will respond to the dog bite I receive at 7 years old, but since my response is 100% determined by my character (eternal character + developed character), God can perfectly know how I will respond years before the dog bite occurs.

As an example we have a properly functioning computer being programmed by 30 individuals. You are 100x as smart as all the other computer programmers and have access to all the code, but you choose to not re-write anything written by your 29 other coders. You read the code as put down by the other coders and add in additional lines where you see fit. When the code is run, you know absolutely all the outputs and results produced by this code. You didn’t coerce or override any of your other coders, you merely observed what they freely choose to put in the program. Your complete knowledge and your addition of code results in two things. You determine the ultimate results and you know perfectly the ultimate and any proximate results along the way. 29 individuals freely choose their code, but the results are predetermined absolutely.

I am not saying that God makes our choices because He has absolute foreknowledge, only that absolute foreknowledge if it exists logically entails not being able to do other than what was absolutely foreknown. To be honest if the truth value of TOm did A at t is established absolutely at time t-1 it does not matter if God knows it or my parents who raised my from an infant know it, TOm cannot do “not A” at time t. The truth value of TOm did A at t does not cause my actions, it just is. But the fact that the truth value exists means I cannot do not A at t.

As one who embraces LFW, I say that the path is not 100% determined by God or by my previous character (there is a huge problem with this view too BTW, and I will mention it later). I make genuinely free choices based upon my CREATIVE SYNTHISIS of all the inputs present at the moment of decision (this is almost all Ostler).

I assume when you say:

God cannot know "all possible future actions to the billions upon billions of forking paths AND the probabilities of each path", and yet not know which path each person takes throughout their immortal lives.

you are not saying that God is incapable of holding the “billions upon billions of forking paths” within His mind because it is just too much data. I have seen folks say this, but I have no problem believing God is billions upon billions of times smarter than I am and I can hold half a dozen forking paths in my mind.

I cut to the chase and ask "what is it for?" And I mean Existence In The First Place. The evidence we see in the world of humans is that Joy is what it Is for. If this life were all there is, and death annihilates the mind, then I would define "God as a monster", intent on the whole spectrum of feelings and emotions without discrimination: we and all living things would be better likened to "nerve endings" to God, leading to the "pleasure center of God's mind", where each tingling sensation of misery and fear of death is just as desirable as Joy. I do not believe that is what "God" is about at all. Joy trumps all other emotions, infinitely so, imhi ("in my humble imagination"). That is why I believe that "God" is all about creating sovereign, free will possessing sapient beings of uniqueness, and providing immortality within spacetime in which to discover what brings an increase in Joy. The resulting "high" to "God" is incomprehensible to finite immortal minds, but we do get glimpses of the enormity of the Infinite Joy that "God" feels, enough so that we crave as much of it for ourselves as we can handle....

I think this is a beautiful picture and can embrace it. Surely there is some pain on the path to greater joy. Likely there is some pain on the poorly chosen paths that God allows us to follow because our freedom is necessary for greater joy (even if our choses do not result in this greater joy coming to fruition ?ever?).

The Problem:

If my CHARACTER does not determine my response to stimuli, how can any post mortal judgment be valid. If I might have done something different and as a result have gone down a path that lead to moral virtue or done the thing I did and went down a path that leads to moral vice, and the choice is not determined by my character, how can I be accountable for it? I cannot perfectly answer this question. With Ostler, I suggest that my CHARACTER is involved in a creative synthesis of all the inputs available to me, but the criticism that this only pushes us back to the question “from whence the ‘creative synthesis’ and how can there by virtue or vice in it” seems strong.

Charity, TOm

[TOmNossor]

As for LFW... it is an unworkable prospect:

"If I have the power to do “not A” then my action at time t+1makes God’s foreknowledge of my action FALSE."

This statement is simply not true. Having the power or capacity to do something is fundamentally distinct from having the inclination or disposition to do something (which is I think part of what you were suggesting). God is concerned with the narrow question of our inclination or disposition, not all possible acts we have the capacity to make.

Are our “inclination” or “disposition” absolute such that they are one way and not another for all actions. I am inclined to drop a pencil during a thought experiment at time “t” such that my action at time “t” is dropping the pencil and, “TOm dropped pencil at time “t” is true at time t-1 and time t and time t+1.

I thing we are perhaps saying the same thing.

Charity, TOm

[Bikeemikey]

Are our “inclination” or “disposition” absolute such that they are one way and not another for all actions. I am inclined to drop a pencil during a thought experiment at time “t” such that my action at time “t” is dropping the pencil and, “TOm dropped pencil at time “t” is true at time t-1 and time t and time t+1.

I thing we are perhaps saying the same thing.

Charity, TOm

By Jove... I think we are.

[Danzo]

that's the thing though is God a poor predictor, if he is then why is he a God?

But god isn't a poor predictor, he is a perfect predictor. The fact he can predict doesn't mean he causes what he predicts.

[Stone holm]

But god isn't a poor predictor, he is a perfect predictor. The fact he can predict doesn't mean he causes what he predicts.

Well, Einstein said God didn't play dice, Niels Bohr responded who are you to say what God does, and then the third guy who actually got it right, but whose name I can never responded said, "God plays dice, but the dice are loaded." That pretty much sums it up, there is in a micro sense uncertainty, but none in the macro sense. Given the experience gained from the generations of gods, God knows what is going to happen in the macro sense. If you need some understanding on this consult Hari Seldon and Isaac Asimov.

[TOmNossor]

One would be that , if it were possible for me to choose something that God did not know, then God is not omniscient. Seems the easy fix is to simply say God is not omniscient. However, I think the Bible paints a picture of an omniscient God, so such a decision is problematic for that reason.

I do not believe that the Bible is either philosophically or theologically precise such that we can (or at least must) say this.

If the truth of the statement, “TOm did A at t” is not a fact until time t and all time after time t, then God could certainly be said to know all because my future contingent acts would not be something that exists within the realm of all knowledge.

One could also demand that the definition of omnipotence of God requires that God has the power to bring about my free choices. If TOm has the power to choose something such that I choose it, then that power is not contained within the power God possesses. Few would suggest that God’s omnipotence extends to the denial of any other beings ability to bring to pass any action, but technically all power could be defined as this.

The other, is more complicated, but probably the driving reason of the two. If I have the ability to choose otherwise, then the independency of that sort of will points more to randomness than something intelligible. If LFW were true, then it would seem to me that if it were possible to repeat the exact series of events that led up to a persons particular choice, over an over at some point they would choose other than what they did choose. In a sense LFW would seem to me to be self defeating because for the will to be free in that sense, isn't it really saying I have the ability to choose other than I would choose?

This is the problem with LFW I mention above.

I can say that my pushing the problem by saying “a creative synthesis of multiple reasons to make a given choice” feels like it helps with this problem. Ostler would call it agent centered causation. But I can also see how either of these ways of describing LFW only pushes the problem back.

I think LDS have a problem with rejecting LFW for this reason. If LDS embrace the “becoming” that we speak about then something internal to us should determine our path of becoming. If our choices are all determined, then our becoming is solely a product of the situations we find ourselves in through eternity. We are not agents in our development, but we are merely products of our initial condition and our experiences.

The problem for non-LDS is much bigger IMO and leads to an extreme Calvinism. I was unsure how you, Mudcat, fell on Calvinism (or worse extreme Calvinism); but this is a problem as I read things. God creates us ex nihilo with a certain set of characteristics that are totally sourced from God’s choices on how to create us. God then places us in a world with other folks similarly (different characteristics, but all God created) created. Our choices are determined from these initial conditions and we are then judged on our acceptance or rejection of God. God is responsible totally for all inputs which absolutely produce a single outcome and thus God is response for all inputs and outcomes. God is the author of virtue and vice. God then condemns those who reject Christ and saves those who do not, but they could not have done otherwise. The problem of evil is not solved by pointing to men’s freedom because all actions are determined from initial conditions which are all determined from God’s creation.

Ostler goes farther and points to a paper by a Catholic scholar Michael Almeida who suggests that LFW is not compatible with creation ex nihilo. My grasp of this argument is nowhere near solid enough to reproduce it. Might be another reason to reject LFW, but I think it is another reason to reject creation ex nihilo.

On Nevo's bank analogy, I think the difficulty linking God's foreknowledge as the causal mechanism of the fellow robbing the bank at 10 the next day. I never have been able to understand that part of the LFW argument. Say God knows a fellow will rob a bank at 10 am a year from now. This fellow doesn't know that God knows this ergo he doesn't factor this in to his reasoning to rob the bank.

I am not sure if you have read what I have said about this. It is not God’s knowledge that CAUSES something (though God’s creation ex nihilo in the absence of LFW could be said to CAUSE all actual evil choices absolutely without fail because God willed them exactly as the happen). It is that the presence of a truth value for the “robbing the bank at 10 the next day” means that “not robbing the bank at 10 the next day” cannot occur (else that truth value would not exist).

Tom on your splintered future concept. My thinking isn't that from it, other than to say that I think all counterfactuals were frontloaded at the point of creation and we have been moving in a singular reality rather ongoing counterfactuals in future events that filter into one reality as present become past.

It have been a while, but this is Molina vs. Thomas. God created all and knew all “counterfactuals of freedom,” He then fit all the pieces together to bring to pass His purposes utilizing the “free” choices of individuals. Molina I think would say that the counterfactuals of freedom are produced by the free-will choices of the individuals who were created, and Thomas would have a problem with this production impacting God in a way that He knows something caused by something that is not Him (God is unchanged and exists “a se.”) I think Molina if all is determined by initial conditions, makes God responsible for all evil anyway just like Thomas, but I may not understand as well as I would like (I have studied some Aquinas, but Molina only through Ostler).

Charity, TOm

[Duncan]

But god isn't a poor predictor, he is a perfect predictor. The fact he can predict doesn't mean he causes what he predicts.

that's the thing though is he passive at what he predicts will happen? if you or I knew someone was violent and we saw them pick up a gun and they said they were going to murder someone and we didn't say anything to anyone or do anything then we could be held responsible-that's why people blame God all the time, if you knew this would bad thing would happen, knew this would be the reaction and my reaction, knew it would hurt me and possibly turn me away from God or feel bitter and you did nothing about it and just saw it all hit the fan and remained passive after the fact then why would I want to believe in a uncaring God like that-just sees what will happen and does diddly about it

[Danzo]

that's the thing though is he passive at what he predicts will happen? if you or I knew someone was violent and we saw them pick up a gun and they said they were going to murder someone and we didn't say anything to anyone or do anything then we could be held responsible-that's why people blame God all the time, if you knew this would bad thing would happen, knew this would be the reaction and my reaction, knew it would hurt me and possibly turn me away from God or feel bitter and you did nothing about it and just saw it all hit the fan and remained passive after the fact then why would I want to believe in a uncaring God like that-just sees what will happen and does diddly about it

Sometimes god intervenes (obviously he uses his agency to do it) sometimes he doesn't. When he doesn't, I believe it is for the greater good. He takes the long view on the greater good (much longer than we can see). I expect he sees much of our sorrows as something extremely temporary and necessary to our own long term happiness.

[Duncan]

Sometimes god intervenes (obviously he uses his agency to do it) sometimes he doesn't. When he doesn't, I believe it is for the greater good. He takes the long view on the greater good (much longer than we can see). I expect he sees much of our sorrows as something extremely temporary and necessary to our own long term happiness.

I guess but there is a lady in my parents ward who in the 1950's whose husband died quite unexpectedly, she still harbours resentment towards God (she told me herself) and she had a very difficult life since then. So I take it God knew that and knows that and knows all everything about that. if he knew all that why would he allow for it to happen? Now, obviously she needs to put into operation the atonement but God, it seems, knows she wouldn't so what's the point of this trial and resentment if he knew nothing good would or has come from it? She got married twice, was cheated on, abused and had an additonal 10 children all of whom were raised in the Church and only 2 are active.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Duncan

[CV75]

so what's the point of this trial and resentment if he knew nothing good would or has come from it?

It ain't over 'til it's over!

Sometimes god intervenes (obviously he uses his agency to do it) sometimes he doesn't. When he doesn't, I believe it is for the greater good. He takes the long view on the greater good (much longer than we can see). I expect he sees much of our sorrows as something extremely temporary and necessary to our own long term happiness.

I agree, I think He only intervenes when the agency He gave His children is about to be irrevocably destroyed. It could be said that the intervention necessary, then, was the Atonement, and every other intervention is an appendage to that.

[Calm]

"God plays dice with the universe, but they're loaded dice." -- Joseph Ford, physicist; personal quote acknowledged in "CHAOS; Making a New Science," James Gleick; Viking Penguin Inc, NY; 1987 (p314)

"God does not play dice with the universe." "On the contrary," Hawking said, "it appears that not only does God play dice, but also that he sometimes throws the dice where they cannot be seen." --Jerry Pournelle, _Galaxy_ magazine article reporting on Hawking lecture at Cal Tech, October 1975, collected in the book _A Step Farther Out_ by Jerry Pournelle, cr. 1979

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1006022709974

Edited June 27, 2013 by calmoriah

[Stone holm]

"God plays dice with the universe, but they're loaded dice." -- Joseph Ford, physicist; personal quote acknowledged in "CHAOS; Making a New Science," James Gleick; Viking Penguin Inc, NY; 1987 (p314)

"God does not play dice with the universe." "On the contrary," Hawking said, "it appears that not only does God play dice, but also that he sometimes throws the dice where they cannot be seen." --Jerry Pournelle, _Galaxy_ magazine article reporting on Hawking lecture at Cal Tech, October 1975, collected in the book _A Step Farther Out_ by Jerry Pournelle, cr. 1979

http://answers.yahoo...d=1006022709974

Could be that first quote is the one, but not sure that is the right name. The third scientist was a student of Niels Bohr. "God plays dice, but they are loaded." That makes sense to me in the sense that God's hand is normally very subtle.

[Mudcat]

I do not believe that the Bible is either philosophically or theologically precise such that we can (or at least must) say this.

If the truth of the statement, “TOm did A at t” is not a fact until time t and all time after time t, then God could certainly be said to know all because my future contingent acts would not be something that exists within the realm of all knowledge.

Tom appreciate the well articulated response.

On this point, I think about Christ proclaiming to Peter that Peter would deny Him thrice. I think about David seeking God about wether he should stay or go. The Lord assuring him that staying would result in David's capture by Saul. I think such statements present a problem for that particular view.

One could also demand that the definition of omnipotence of God requires that God has the power to bring about my free choices. If TOm has the power to choose something such that I choose it, then that power is not contained within the power God possesses. Few would suggest that God’s omnipotence extends to the denial of any other beings ability to bring to pass any action, but technically all power could be defined as this.

This part was a difficult read for me. I think the term has been overstretched by some. Thinking about the stone so heavy, square circle, sort of things.. in general the things that would assert that God is not omnipotent if God is not able to act beyond His own nature. About as far as I go with it, is that God seems to have created us with the ability to be responsible for what we cause, as I understand it.

This is the problem with LFW I mention above.

I can say that my pushing the problem by saying “a creative synthesis of multiple reasons to make a given choice” feels like it helps with this problem. Ostler would call it agent centered causation. But I can also see how either of these ways of describing LFW only pushes the problem back.

I think LDS have a problem with rejecting LFW for this reason. If LDS embrace the “becoming” that we speak about then something internal to us should determine our path of becoming. If our choices are all determined, then our becoming is solely a product of the situations we find ourselves in through eternity. We are not agents in our development, but we are merely products of our initial condition and our experiences.

The problem for non-LDS is much bigger IMO and leads to an extreme Calvinism. I was unsure how you, Mudcat, fell on Calvinism (or worse extreme Calvinism); but this is a problem as I read things. God creates us ex nihilo with a certain set of characteristics that are totally sourced from God’s choices on how to create us. God then places us in a world with other folks similarly (different characteristics, but all God created) created. Our choices are determined from these initial conditions and we are then judged on our acceptance or rejection of God. God is responsible totally for all inputs which absolutely produce a single outcome and thus God is response for all inputs and outcomes. God is the author of virtue and vice. God then condemns those who reject Christ and saves those who do not, but they could not have done otherwise. The problem of evil is not solved by pointing to men’s freedom because all actions are determined from initial conditions which are all determined from God’s creation.

Ostler goes farther and points to a paper by a Catholic scholar Michael Almeida who suggests that LFW is not compatible with creation ex nihilo. My grasp of this argument is nowhere near solid enough to reproduce it. Might be another reason to reject LFW, but I think it is another reason to reject creation ex nihilo.

On this one Tom, I will try and address from my own position and reserve LDS to respond to whatever issues they see, bold mine.

On Calvinism, after many discussions with Calvinists, I am still oppositional to the view. I am a compatabilist of sorts, but not in the way Calvinism associates the term... but from what I can tell the compatibilist Calvinists are the most gregarious and reasonable amongst them. I don't like speaking for the views of others, just stating my observations.

To sum up my view on that bit. I do not see God's foreknowledge as a product of God's decree. Other way round.

I would say that God has created a situation in which the most that will, by His Grace (more in a "prevenient" sense here, but I don't like the word), determine to follow Him do. God gave no respect to individuals in this process, rather the sum totality of His goal, to save as many as He could within the parameters of His nature to do so.

On the POE, I don't mind saying that I agree that in some sense, even considering the possibility of the responsibility of secondary causes, God is on the hook here. I think the silver lining for the non-LDS Chrsitians is that at the end of this, there is an ultimate resolution.. an end to evil.

Evil seems to be neccessary condition of affairs for God and everyone from the LDS paradigm. There is no stopping it.

I am not sure if you have read what I have said about this. It is not God’s knowledge that CAUSES something (though God’s creation ex nihilo in the absence of LFW could be said to CAUSE all actual evil choices absolutely without fail because God willed them exactly as the happen). It is that the presence of a truth value for the “robbing the bank at 10 the next day” means that “not robbing the bank at 10 the next day” cannot occur (else that truth value would not exist).

I think it presents an issue for LFW, but not for much else.

It have been a while, but this is Molina vs. Thomas. God created all and knew all “counterfactuals of freedom,” He then fit all the pieces together to bring to pass His purposes utilizing the “free” choices of individuals. Molina I think would say that the counterfactuals of freedom are produced by the free-will choices of the individuals who were created, and Thomas would have a problem with this production impacting God in a way that He knows something caused by something that is not Him (God is unchanged and exists “a se.”) I think Molina if all is determined by initial conditions, makes God responsible for all evil anyway just like Thomas, but I may not understand as well as I would like (I have studied some Aquinas, but Molina only through Ostler).

I don't think your off here. I am not an expert on Molina, I suppose my stance on self determinism and God's counterfactual knowledge puts me in the Molinistic corner. The concepts of "middle knowledge" and how all that works are a bit beyond me. I suppose I am more of a fellow that takes Occam's razor to the notion of counterfactuals and sees whats left after the shave.

All the best,

Mudcat

[Questing Beast]

I mentioned the existence of Libertarian Free Will, LFW.

There are those who do not believe LFW exists. They believe that every action is DETERMINED by the inputs into those actions. These inputs can be people who taught us 10 years ago, people who challenge us in the moment of decision, and the baseball in our hand at the moment of decision (or any number of things). But the totality of inputs processed through the totality of who we are produces a SINGLE decision.

The issue as I am framing it (especially for the LDS) is not “does God cause my choices.” A LDS can consistently believe that Eternal Intelligences uncreated by God proceed through a pre-determined (100% deterministic) path to an end. Inputs into this path come from the “character” of the individual Eternal Intelligence AND from God putting this individual into a family with two parents, one sister, and a dog. God does not choose how I will respond to the dog bite I receive at 7 years old, but since my response is 100% determined by my character (eternal character + developed character), God can perfectly know how I will respond years before the dog bite occurs.

As an example we have a properly functioning computer being programmed by 30 individuals. You are 100x as smart as all the other computer programmers and have access to all the code, but you choose to not re-write anything written by your 29 other coders. You read the code as put down by the other coders and add in additional lines where you see fit. When the code is run, you know absolutely all the outputs and results produced by this code. You didn’t coerce or override any of your other coders, you merely observed what they freely choose to put in the program. Your complete knowledge and your addition of code results in two things. You determine the ultimate results and you know perfectly the ultimate and any proximate results along the way. 29 individuals freely choose their code, but the results are predetermined absolutely.

I am not saying that God makes our choices because He has absolute foreknowledge, only that absolute foreknowledge if it exists logically entails not being able to do other than what was absolutely foreknown. To be honest if the truth value of TOm did A at t is established absolutely at time t-1 it does not matter if God knows it or my parents who raised my from an infant know it, TOm cannot do “not A” at time t. The truth value of TOm did A at t does not cause my actions, it just is. But the fact that the truth value exists means I cannot do not A at t.

As one who embraces LFW, I say that the path is not 100% determined by God or by my previous character (there is a huge problem with this view too BTW, and I will mention it later). I make genuinely free choices based upon my CREATIVE SYNTHISIS of all the inputs present at the moment of decision (this is almost all Ostler).

I assume when you say:

you are not saying that God is incapable of holding the “billions upon billions of forking paths” within His mind because it is just too much data. I have seen folks say this, but I have no problem believing God is billions upon billions of times smarter than I am and I can hold half a dozen forking paths in my mind.

I think this is a beautiful picture and can embrace it. Surely there is some pain on the path to greater joy. Likely there is some pain on the poorly chosen paths that God allows us to follow because our freedom is necessary for greater joy (even if our choses do not result in this greater joy coming to fruition ?ever?).

The Problem:

If my CHARACTER does not determine my response to stimuli, how can any post mortal judgment be valid. If I might have done something different and as a result have gone down a path that lead to moral virtue or done the thing I did and went down a path that leads to moral vice, and the choice is not determined by my character, how can I be accountable for it? I cannot perfectly answer this question. With Ostler, I suggest that my CHARACTER is involved in a creative synthesis of all the inputs available to me, but the criticism that this only pushes us back to the question “from whence the ‘creative synthesis’ and how can there by virtue or vice in it” seems strong.

Charity, TOm

Your logical example of predetermined action yet free will being exercised at least from the perspective of the actor, is flawed in one respect that I can think of: "God", being Infinite, is not restricted to knowing ONE choice taken in a given situation. There is such a concept called the "multiverse", where effectively limitless choices can be made, producing effectively limitless worlds as a result. Whether or not I brush my teeth, therefore, produces an effect upon the multiverse: in one, I brushed my teeth tonight, in the other I did not brush my teeth tonight. Even random, subconscious acts and lack of acting, produce the same division in the multiverse. So "God" is not observing a singular pathway that branches at each "moment of decision", rather, "God" is so huge that intimate awareness of every soul and the multiverse that it travels is implicit with the concept of Infinity: "God" is that huge, that each soul is as intimately known within its immortal, egocentric multiverse, as if I am the only one that exists, and yet there are innumerable souls being created all the "time": Existence is NOW to "God In Total", but to GtF, who lives inside of spacetime in this world/universe, spacetime is perceived as we perceive it, as immortals, but not as mortals: as immortals we have the capacity, or so I like to believe, to reenter our mortal lives at any point and continue on. I have evidence in my personal life that this occurs. So when we die and want to try something to divert from death at that point we can reenter prior to death and go ahead differently. Thus LFW is too simplistic, assuming a singular pathway through all our choices. Existence is far more complex than that....

Edited June 28, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Stone holm]

Your logical example of predetermined action yet free will being exercised at least from the perspective of the actor, is flawed in one respect that I can think of: "God", being Infinite, is not restricted to knowing ONE choice taken in a given situation. There is such a concept called the "multiverse", where effectively limitless choices can be made, producing effectively limitless worlds as a result. Whether or not I brush my teeth, therefore, produces an effect upon the multiverse: in one, I brushed my teeth tonight, in the other I did not brush my teeth tonight. Even random, subconscious acts and lack of acting, produce the same division in the multiverse. So "God" is not observing a singular pathway that branches at each "moment of decision", rather, "God" is so huge that intimate awareness of every soul and the multiverse that it travels is implicit with the concept of Infinity: "God" is that huge, that each soul is as intimately known within its immortal, egocentric multiverse, as if I am the only one that exists, and yet there are innumerable souls being created all the "time": Existence is NOW to "God In Total", but to GtF, who lives inside of spacetime in this world/universe, spacetime is perceived as we perceive it, as immortals, but not as mortals: as immortals we have the capacity, or so I like to believe, to reenter our mortal lives at any point and continue on. I have evidence in my personal life that this occurs. So when we die and want to try something to divert from death at that point we can reenter prior to death and go ahead differently. Thus LFW is too simplistic, assuming a singular pathway through all our choices. Existence is far more complex than that....

I don't think the multi-verse argument gets you out of the predestination. I, do not exist in more than one universe at a time, something akin to me may, but in the present I only exist in one universe. Hence if God knows what is going to happen to this particular me who is typing this on my keyboard then free agency does not exist. The fact that He knows what is happening to other me in a multitude of other future universes does not restore free agency since presumably he knows exactly how many universes get created with each decision. Sorry the logic doesn't flow, but its a very nice sophisticated try. Did somebody declare metaphysics dead?

[Ahab]

I don't think the multi-verse argument gets you out of the predestination. I, do not exist in more than one universe at a time, something akin to me may, but in the present I only exist in one universe.

That's a good point, and true.

Hence if God knows what is going to happen to this particular me who is typing this on my keyboard then free agency does not exist.

That is false, and a bad assumption. The fact that he knows what you will choose to do doesn't mean you don't have a choice to do what you will do.

[Stone holm]

That's a good point, and true.

That is false, and a bad assumption. The fact that he knows what you will choose to do doesn't mean you don't have a choice to do what you will do.

If he knows what I will choose to do for a certainty, then it is predetermined what I will do. In essence, there has to be a micro-chance that God will be uncertain as to what I will do for there to be free agency. Just as there had to have been a micro-chance that Christ would have succumbed to Satan's temptations, or His choice would not have been solely His. That is why Christ's comment in the Garden of Gethesemane is so important.

[Ahab]

If he knows what I will choose to do for a certainty, then it is predetermined what I will do. In essence, there has to be a micro-chance that God will be uncertain as to what I will do for there to be free agency. Just as there had to have been a micro-chance that Christ would have succumbed to Satan's temptations, or His choice would not have been solely His. That is why Christ's comment in the Garden of Gethesemane is so important.

No, Go doesn't need to be uncertain. He just needs to be able to somehow see what we will choose to do. We will do what we will do and there is no getting out of it because that is what we will actually do, regardless of what we could have chosen to do instead.

[Stone holm]

No, Go doesn't need to be uncertain. He just needs to be able to somehow see what we will choose to do. We will do what we will do and there is no getting out of it because that is what we will actually do, regardless of what we could have chosen to do instead.

If we will do what we will do, then life becomes a farce and pointless -- since if it was already known what we would do, then there would be no point in testing to find out, might as well skip the whole Earth probation thingy.

[Ahab]

If we will do what we will do, then life becomes a farce and pointless -- since if it was already known what we would do, then there would be no point in testing to find out, might as well skip the whole Earth probation thingy.

You're not seeing the obvious. What do you expect? To do something you did not do? You're going to do what you're going to do even when you're going to choose what you're going to do, because you're choosing to do what you do.

Step back. Take a breath. Read and think about it some more. This really isn't a hard thing to figure out.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't think the multi-verse argument gets you out of the predestination. I, do not exist in more than one universe at a time, something akin to me may, but in the present I only exist in one universe. Hence if God knows what is going to happen to this particular me who is typing this on my keyboard then free agency does not exist. The fact that He knows what is happening to other me in a multitude of other future universes does not restore free agency since presumably he knows exactly how many universes get created with each decision. Sorry the logic doesn't flow, but its a very nice sophisticated try. Did somebody declare metaphysics dead?

I absolutely knew that at some time in their early childhood my children would touch the stove when it was hot. That knowledge did not force them to do it. I just made sure I had the burn ointment handy.

[Bikeemikey]

If we will do what we will do, then life becomes a farce and pointless -- since if it was already known what we would do, then there would be no point in testing to find out, might as well skip the whole Earth probation thingy.

All of this pre-supposes we consider life a test... Which it is not.

[Stone holm]

All of this pre-supposes we consider life a test... Which it is not.

Ah, true if life is just a conditioning process, yes. The problem with that is our constant teaching of eternal rewards for good behaviour and the references to this as a probationary state, not to mention the awkward position it places God as sending persons here knowing for a certainty that the specific individual would be better off never having been born which is the case for sons of perdition.

[Calm]

I absolutely knew that at some time in their early childhood my children would touch the stove when it was hot. That knowledge did not force them to do it. I just made sure I had the burn ointment handy.

The reason of the knowledge is what 'forced' them though, their own internal self, not him knowing it.

The knowledge of God does not in itself force someone to act, it is the fact that he knows what will happen that is the key and what that means. How does he know it? It is because he knows each of us so well he knows what choices we make. We may be self-determined therefore, but if he is omniscient to the point of knowing exactly what we will do, we are so self-determined as to have no choice to change our path. Whether or not God is the programmer, if men are programmed to behave a certain way (externally by environment or God or something else or internally by our eternal nature), then our behaviour is determined though in the latter case one could say self-determined at least.

[thesometimesaint]

Ah, true if life is just a conditioning process, yes. The problem with that is our constant teaching of eternal rewards for good behaviour and the references to this as a probationary state, not to mention the awkward position it places God as sending persons here knowing for a certainty that the specific individual would be better off never having been born which is the case for sons of perdition.

Gods foreknowledge doesn't prevent them from repenting. He just knows they will not.