Connection between free will and a known future?

[JamesATyler]

I read a lot of posts where people think that when God knows their future, that somehow removes their free will. Why is this? Why do people think that because God knows a person’s future that it suddenly became God that designed it and not their own design? Why do people make that connection?

 

[Bahman]

The problem arises when an agent with free has access to foreknowledge since it could do opposite of what is known and put foreknowledge on jeopardy. In another word, the truness of foreknowledge is subject to secrecy.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I read a lot of posts where people think that when God knows their future, that somehow removes their free will. Why is this? Why do people think that because God knows a person’s future that it suddenly became God that designed it and not their own design? Why do people make that connection?

I see no connection between the knowledge of one agent and the actions of another.

If Agent A knows for certain that Agent B will undertake Actions X, Y and Z, the knowledge that Agent A had or has is causally inert. The knowledge does not “cause,” undermine nor nullify Agent B’s free will because the choices Agent B makes are made without any causal influence from the knowledge that Agent A possesses.

If Agent B comes to know what Agent A does, then it would be true that B’s knowledge has affected A’s action, but that is because the knowledge has become A’s knowledge where it does become causally effective.

So, God’s certain knowledge of what we will do, does not entail we do not decide our own destiny. We still do.

The problem, I think, for those who subscribe to predetermination is that they have a difficult time trying to explain God’s active grace that seeks to guide and move us towards salvation. Why would he actively seek the salvation and redemption of “sinners” if he already “knows” what our fate will be? God’s action in history would seem to contradict his foreknowledge such that his actions in history would be superfluous. Clearly our destiny depends upon us and our free will, which is why God continues to work in our lives to moves us where he wills us to be, but the choice to end there will have been ours.

The dynamic between the temporal existence we are in and the eternal existence of God is something we should not make rash assumptions about, as if there is no point to any choices we make. Better to assume every choice has real meaning than to assume, based on bad logic, that no choices do.

Why would God bother if “it’s a done deal?” Why would Jesus become man and suffer crucifixion? To me those are strong indicators that foreknowledge does not equal fate.

God’s “knowledge” is much more dynamic and “rich” than the factual grasp or certainty about things we call “knowledge.”

 

[inocente]

From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Moses Maimonides (1135-1204) has set out the problem in the traditional manner:

”Does God know or does He not know that a certain individual will be good or bad? If thou sayest ‘He knows’, then it necessarily follows that [that] man is compelled to act as God knew beforehand he would act, otherwise God’s knowledge would be imperfect.…” (1966, pp. 99-100)

The argument can be extended. The thrust of the argument does not apply only to doing good or ill, but indeed to every human act, from the most mundane to the most significant. The argument could just as well read:

“Does God know or does He not know that a certain individual (let’s say the Prime Minister of Canada), on Feb. 3, 2081, will put on brown shoes when dressing in the morning? If thou sayest ‘He knows’, then it necessarily follows that the Prime Minister is compelled to act (that is, to put on brown shoes) as God knew beforehand he/she would, otherwise God’s knowledge would be imperfect. …”

The argument for the seeming impossibility of both God’s having foreknowledge and our having free will has troubled religious thinkers, philosophers, and jurists for centuries.

• iep.utm.edu/foreknow/

 

[Tom_Baum]

I read a lot of posts where people think that when God knows their future, that somehow removes their free will. Why is this? Why do people think that because God knows a person’s future that it suddenly became God that designed it and not their own design? Why do people make that connection?

I would say that it is because we like to put God in a “box” of human understanding and God just does not fit into any of our “boxes”, no matter how nice we may construct these “boxes”.

I would also say that it is quite human to make the connection that you refer too.

Since God “knew” even before creation that some would never “repent” this side of death, God came up with a Plan, which is unfolding before our very eyes and will come to Fruition and God’s Plan is for ALL, ultimately, to be with God.

 

[Tom_Baum]

The argument for the seeming impossibility of both God’s having foreknowledge and our having free will has troubled religious thinkers, philosophers, and jurists for centuries.

• iep.utm.edu/foreknow/

It doesn’t bother me in the least, all it points out to me is that many people, including but not limited to “religious thinkers, philosophers, and jurists”, have a very “small” conception of God.

Brings to mind the old saying, “God created us in His Image and Likeness and we have been trying to return the favor ever since”.

 

[Tom_Baum]

If one believes or even wants to think that God created everything except for God, one of the ways to look at it is:

Think of a circle with all of creation in it (space: all of the three dimensions of everything) that is running along a line (time).

Both space and time had a starting point, whether or not there is an ending point, I don’t know, I would say that God knows but I don’t know.

Think of God as outside of this space and time, looking down or up or sideways at it but apart from it.

As a certain point in time and space, God created Jesus to become part of creation, until this “certain point”, He, Who would become God-Incarnate, was just God but when Mary said YES, He Who is referred to as the Second Person of the Trinity became the Son of God and the Son of Man.

The Incarnation was planned before creation itself, one could say that it was/is a very intregral part of creation but it did come about at a very specific time and place in creation.

God “knew” that Mary would say YES but Mary had to say YES of her own free will, not forced into it, or she would have been a mere puppet of God.

God can view this space at anywhere along the time line (past, present, future), God even became, in the Incarnation, a part of this space along the timeline.

 

[JamesATyler]

God can view this space at anywhere along the time line (past, present, future), God even became, in the Incarnation, a part of this space along the timeline.

Maybe God doesn’t even view time from a particular place or time. I think that’s the human part. The idea that we view from a place and time. We assume God is the same way.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Maybe God doesn’t even view time from a particular place or time. I think that’s the human part. The idea that we view from a place and time. We assume God is the same way.

I’m not saying that God does it that way, I am just saying that is one way that us humans can look at it.

It kind of goes back to one of the other things that I wrote, “God created us in His Image and likeness and we have been trying to return the favor ever since”.

By the way, God is a Being of Love in that Love is not an attribute of God but is God’s Very Being and that Love, is the “Image and Likeness” that we are created in and as it should be painfully obvious, this “Image and Likeness” sure does not shine thru at times, thank God that at least a glimmer of It shines thru once in a while.

As far as “Maybe God doesn’t even view time from a particular place or time”, I saying that God is outside, so to speak, of time and place so God is in no way constrained by time and/or place.

This could be why Jesus said, “The Father is greater than I”, in that in the Incarnation, Jesus had constraints, self-imposed, by time and space.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The argument could just as well read:

“Does God know or does He not know that a certain individual (let’s say the Prime Minister of Canada), on Feb. 3, 2081, will put on brown shoes when dressing in the morning? If thou sayest ‘He knows’, then it necessarily follows that the Prime Minister is compelled to act (that is, to put on brown shoes) as God knew beforehand he/she would, otherwise God’s knowledge would be imperfect. …”

There is no causal connection between God’s knowledge and our action. Our actions are still causally our own even if God knows them. It is not a question of “before” because God is eternal not temporal. He does not know what we do “before,” he simply knows what we do, but no logically causal connection exists between God’s knowledge and our capacity to determine autonomously what we do. You are assuming there is, but that, too, is a logical fallacy - two actually.

1. Post hoc ergo propter hoc Latin for “after this, therefore because of this” (faulty cause/effect, coincidental correlation, correlation without causation) – X happened then Y happened; therefore X caused Y. The Loch Ness Monster has been seen in this loch. Something tipped our boat over; it’s obviously the Loch Ness Monster.

Even if God’ knowledge were “fore” knowledge, your argument would be fallacious. Second, God’s knowledge isn’t foreknowledge in any case.

1. Retrospective determinism – the argument that because some event has occurred, its occurrence must have been inevitable beforehand.

You presume God’s certain knowledge of what does occur means the act had to occur and was therefore determined to before it actually did. But claiming God’s certain knowledge of an event occurring is nothing more than a claim that the event did actually occur and God knows that it did in time.

Source for fallacy descriptions : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

 

[belorg]

I read a lot of posts where people think that when God knows their future, that somehow removes their free will. Why is this? Why do people think that because God knows a person’s future that it suddenly became God that designed it and not their own design? Why do people make that connection?

I don’t think that because God (or anyone else for that matter) knows a person’s future, it means that God has designed it.
What it does mean, however, is that the future is determined. Whether God has determined it, or something else is not relevant. The point is that foreknowledge of an action entails that it is true that sais action will occur. And foreknowledge of what the Prime Minister of Canada on Feb. 3, 2081, will put on brown means that it is already a fact, even though the PM hasn’t been born yet.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

There is no causal connection between God’s knowledge and our action. Our actions are still causally our own even if God knows them. It is not a question of “before” because God is eternal not temporal. He does not know what we do “before,” he simply knows what we do, but no logically causal connection exists between God’s knowledge and our capacity to determine autonomously what we do. You are assuming there is, but that, too, is a logical fallacy - two actually.

For clarities sake, are you saying that God has universal awareness rather than knowledge of all events in time. For example, He is not aware of my thought until I have it.

An imperfect example but like someone reading a book. I am not part of the books timeline but I am privy to everything that happens in the book. It doesn’t occur until I read it, then I know it. I am outside the book but can know everything that happens in it’s story.

 

[Peter_Plato]

For clarities sake, are you saying that God has universal awareness rather than knowledge of all events in time. For example, He is not aware of my thought until I have it.

Even if God has awareness of your thoughts the instant you have them does not entail that his knowledge at all determines the content or source of your thoughts.

I think the error comes from an imperfect understanding of what autonomy, in a moral or ontological sense, means. We seem to be unable to comprehend that God could create a being with autonomous free will. Our default position is that if God creates a human being, then that being must necessarily be an automaton that only makes decisions based upon its internal circuitry that God has predetermined and, therefore, since God knows the functionality of all the circuitry, he must know what acts will proceed from the amalgam of the workings. Given that perspective, we assume that God knows our choices and acts because he intimately knows the internal functioning of our neural circuitry. His foreknowledge seems to entail the same kind of foreknowledge that a computer programmer would have concerning (name removed by moderator)uts and outputs.

Given that paradigm, then God’s foreknowledge would be deterministic. I just don’t think that is what we are as autonomous beings. Our freedom of will is a freedom to bring into existence novel causal chains, both in the external world and in our internal subjective world. That freedom takes place in time, but the fact that it does need not entail God’s eternal knowledge of it determines it. We, ultimately are responsible for what results from our internal and free will. Even if God “sees” all of it from eternity he need not determine it in any way.

An imperfect example but like someone reading a book. I am not part of the books timeline but I am privy to everything that happens in the book. It doesn’t occur until I read it, then I know it. I am outside the book but can know everything that happens in it’s story.

The more you know about the book, even if it got the the point of knowing every motive of every character, including every thought and reason the author had for including every act, prop or event, that would still be an entirely separate and distinct matter from the actual causes of all of those, which would, in the case of the book, still have been the effective result of the author’s choices.

 

[thecone137]

Even if God has awareness of your thoughts the instant you have them does not entail that his knowledge at all determines the content or source of your thoughts.

I think the error comes from an imperfect understanding of what autonomy, in a moral or ontological sense, means. We seem to be unable to comprehend that God could create a being with autonomous free will. Our default position is that if God creates a human being, then that being must necessarily be an automaton that only makes decisions based upon its internal circuitry that God has predetermined and, therefore, since God knows the functionality of all the circuitry, he must know what acts will proceed from the amalgam of the workings. Given that perspective, we assume that God knows our choices and acts because he intimately knows the internal functioning of our neural circuitry. His foreknowledge seems to entail the same kind of foreknowledge that a computer programmer would have concerning (name removed by moderator)uts and outputs.

Given that paradigm, then God’s foreknowledge would be deterministic. I just don’t think that is what we are as autonomous beings. Our freedom of will is a freedom to bring into existence novel causal chains, both in the external world and in our internal subjective world. That freedom takes place in time, but the fact that it does need not entail God’s eternal knowledge of it determines it. We, ultimately are responsible for what results from our internal and free will. Even if God “sees” all of it from eternity he need not determine it in any way.

Does the fact that our free wills can bring into existence causal chains mean that we are creating something from nothing?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Does the fact that our free wills can bring into existence causal chains mean that we are creating something from nothing?

No. It merely means that new courses of physical activity have been originated within the causal order without an antecedent physical cause.

 

[JamesATyler]

Even if God’ knowledge were “fore” knowledge, your argument would be fallacious. Second, God’s knowledge isn’t foreknowledge in any case.

I had been thinking of God’s knowledge of our future as foreknowledge but you made me see that I was looking at this wrong. Fore-knowledge implies having knowledge before a specific time. If God were temporal and all knowing then we could say he has foreknowledge. Since he is not temporal, he does not have foreknowledge. He has complete knowledge of all time, at all times because he doesn’t exist like we do.

 

[ccmnxc]

Yeah, I’d have to agree with Peter Plato in this. I’ve never found the argument particularly compelling. This also has to do with the predestination/double-predestination issue. Catholics believe in predestination insofar is what God sees in the future will happen. However, we have not been picked at random to be sent to Heaven or Hell (double-predestination).

I also think we need to distinguish between what will happen and what must happen. I think whatever God sees in our future will happen. However, I do not think it must happen. This is because (and Peter pointed this out earlier) God’s foreknowledge has no causal influence upon my decisions. If something must have happened, it would imply I had one and only one choice (using the term ‘choice’ loosely). However, say 10 minutes ago, I had P and Q as options and had to opt for one or the other. Since God’s foreknowledge had no causal connection to my choice, even if He saw me to pick Q, there was nothing causally stopping me form picking P except my being compelled to opt for Q. However, I think it can be agreed upon that me opting for one or the other does not compromise my free-will. It exemplifies it.

 

[inocente]

There is no causal connection between God’s knowledge and our action. Our actions are still causally our own even if God knows them. It is not a question of “before” because God is eternal not temporal. He does not know what we do “before,” he simply knows what we do, but no logically causal connection exists between God’s knowledge and our capacity to determine autonomously what we do. You are assuming there is, but that, too, is a logical fallacy - two actually.

1. Post hoc ergo propter hoc Latin for “after this, therefore because of this” (faulty cause/effect, coincidental correlation, correlation without causation) – X happened then Y happened; therefore X caused Y. The Loch Ness Monster has been seen in this loch. Something tipped our boat over; it’s obviously the Loch Ness Monster.

Even if God’ knowledge were “fore” knowledge, your argument would be fallacious. Second, God’s knowledge isn’t foreknowledge in any case.

1. Retrospective determinism – the argument that because some event has occurred, its occurrence must have been inevitable beforehand.

You presume God’s certain knowledge of what does occur means the act had to occur and was therefore determined to before it actually did. But claiming God’s certain knowledge of an event occurring is nothing more than a claim that the event did actually occur and God knows that it did in time.

Source for fallacy descriptions : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

I didn’t make any arguments, I simply quoted part of a peer reviewed article by a professor emeritus.

It’s wonderful how you dismiss him and 2,300 years of philosophical debate as fallacious.

I’ll quote from another article. If you spot any more of what you suppose to be fallacies you can email the author, I’m sure she’d welcome you finally solving the problem that has perplexed so many philosophers down through the ages. She’s Linda Zagzebski, University of Oklahoma, George Lynn Cross Research Professor of Philosophy, Kingfisher College Chair of the Philosophy of Religion and Ethics, Ph.D. Univ. of Calif., Los Angeles, M.A. University of Calif., Berkeley, B.A. Stanford University.

*Most objections to the timelessness solution to the dilemma of foreknowledge and freedom focus on the idea of timelessness itself, arguing either that it does not make sense or that it is incompatible with other properties of God that are religiously more compelling, such as personhood (e.g., Pike 1970, 121–129; Wolterstorff 1975; Swinburne 1977, 221).

• plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/*

 

[JamesATyler]

From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Moses Maimonides (1135-1204) has set out the problem in the traditional manner:

”Does God know or does He not know that a certain individual will be good or bad? If thou sayest ‘He knows’, then it necessarily follows that [that] man is compelled to act as God knew beforehand he would act, otherwise God’s knowledge would be imperfect.…” (1966, pp. 99-100)

The argument can be extended. The thrust of the argument does not apply only to doing good or ill, but indeed to every human act, from the most mundane to the most significant. The argument could just as well read:

“Does God know or does He not know that a certain individual (let’s say the Prime Minister of Canada), on Feb. 3, 2081, will put on brown shoes when dressing in the morning? If thou sayest ‘He knows’, then it necessarily follows that the Prime Minister is compelled to act (that is, to put on brown shoes) as God knew beforehand he/she would, otherwise God’s knowledge would be imperfect. …”

The argument for the seeming impossibility of both God’s having foreknowledge and our having free will has troubled religious thinkers, philosophers, and jurists for centuries.

• iep.utm.edu/foreknow/

Yeah, I just don’t think he is “compelled”. I think God sees that the man was good/ill or put on the brown shoes because the man wanted to and he did it. I agree with Plato. I don’t think there is any link with free will and God’s knowledge of all things including past, present, future.

Just because the future is known to God doesn’t make it a script. That’s the fallacy, I think.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

Putting on brown shoes in the morning of the 3rd Feb.2081 can be seen in at least two ways.
One way to see it is from a point within the system, from within time, when the putting on of the brown shoes in 2081 is an unknown event in the future.
Another way of seeing it is from a state outside of time. In this state, no matter at what point in an event or sequence you are at it is always now, to you the viewer.
You don’t move forward in time with events. Events move through you in the eternal now. For you there is no future unknown because there is no future in the eternal now. There is nothing else but the eternal now. So everything is known in the eternal now because at every point in time, both past and future, is now. :coffeeread: