Does God know my future? Do I really have free will?

[cpayne]

you will necessarily raise your hand in two minutes if God knows it.

That isn’t causing it. Just as knowing that you raised your hand two minutes ago doesn’t cause it.

I agree with the second part. The way the first part is worded leads to problems, however.

It is necessarily the case that I will either raise my hand or not raise my hand. It is also necessarily the case that God knows which I will do. It is not necessarily the case, however, that I will raise my hand. It is entirely possible that I NOT raise my hand. In that case, “not raising my hand” is what God knows.

But as you said, knowing something, even knowing it infallibly, is not equivalent to forcing it to happen.

(Edited part) The above is also why I would disagree with Michael’s last post.

 

[michael_legna]

Why isn’t knowing something infallibly equivalent to forcing it to happen?

If I know you are going to raise your hand in two minutes and I cannot be wrong, then when two minutes have elapsed you have two choices, raise you hand and make me correct or not raise your hand and make me in error. The second choice is in violation of the premise that I cannot be wrong, so that conclusion is not possible.

Now with regard to your idea that if you do raise your hand that is what God knew, and if you did not raise your and then He knew that instead works only if you prevent God from ever making a prediction known to any witness, because the minute He does He cannot know something else from what He predicted if indeed that is what you decide to do in two minutes.

So your idea saves our free will, but at the expense that we have an infallible God, who cannot make predictions.

 

[Keikiolu]

I would like to put forward a philosophical idea and see what others think of it and if it is contrary to any of the teachings of the Catholic Church. I personally don’t know of any teachings it is contrary to, but perhaps others here could either point them out of the error of this possible solution to the apparent contradiction between omniscience and free will.

I will start by saying this relies on a comparison between the characteristics of omnipotence and omniscience.

The Church teaches that God is all powerful and I accept this. However we know that there are some things God cannot do, and I am not talking about philosophical paradoxes. I refer to the fact that God cannot destroy the world by flood ever again.

This is because God has entered into a covenant, so this is a self limitation.

Of course all promises made by God as part of any of His covenants would be of this nature, so there are many other examples we could provide.

Some might be tempted to claim here that God is not really unable to destroy the earth through flood He has just chosen not to. But since God cannot lie, this is a difference that makes no difference.

For God to be able to do anything, without restriction, is swhat God CAN do. He is therefore omnipotent (capable of all things).

For God not to do a thing which He has covented to not-do is merely God’s free will choice, and is not the same thing as His not being able to do it.

In other words, there IS a difference (logically though not practically) between “not being able to do” and “not wanting to do”, a thing.

God can’t destroy His own free will, as that would destroy His omnipotence, which, being an integral part of God Himself, can’t be destroyed.

Therefore, your proposition that God can “destroy God” is provably an error.

Since “omniscience” is merely a “sub-species” of OMNIPOTENCE, because “to know” is an instance of “to do” (“knowing” is an act which one DOES, especially in the case of God), what applies for “omnipotence” applies for “omniscience”.

This makes the rest of your proposition nonsense.

Now for a moment I would like to describe the problem of free will, as I see it so it will be clear how my idea solves it.

God gave us free will and for it to be truly free it means we must be able to make any choice we wish. But if God is to know everything in an absolute sense, including every decision we make before we ever make it, that obviously is not the case. So to make this gift, a true gift of free will God self limits so that He does not know in an absolute sense our every decision. This does not mean God does not have a really good idea of what we are going to do, (since among other things He is an unsurpassed psychologist and sociologist) and He does in certain cases perform miracles which do restrict someones free will for a brief period, and of course He has His faithful which cooperate with His grace who He can work through to keep His plan on track.

So couldn’t the gift of free will also be of the same nature as a covenant?

I mean could not God (who would know this problem of free will would exist if He knew everything) have decided that in order to make the gift a true one, purposely limit His ability to know every decision we would make in advance?

He would not have to limit His knowledge, in fact He CAN’T limit what is non-limitable without destrying Himself.

Your proposition is aimed at the solution of a mystery which can not be solved with human understanding. Your attempt to do so simply helps to clarify the areas where the mystery is more and more “localized”.

You’ve done a very good job “localizing” the mysterious bits of this situation to:

“God can’t self limit because to do so nullifies Himself, and since that is impossible, anything based on God limiting Himself is based on an error.”

God would still be omniscient, just as He is omnipotent. He would be unable to know in an absolute sense what decision we would make before we made it, in the same way there are things He cannot do under any number of the covenants. But this would not mean He was not all knowing anymore than it means He is not all powerful.

Best to 'ya…!

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Keikiolu]

Why isn’t knowing something infallibly equivalent to forcing it to happen?

Because you are assuming that one KNOWS BEFORE the thing happening, which is an assumption of time like ours.

Since God exists “outside” time as we know it, the causal link between “absolutely knowing” and “forcing” doesn’t apply.

If I know you are going to raise your hand in two minutes and I cannot be wrong, then when two minutes have elapsed you have two choices, raise you hand and make me correct or not raise your hand and make me in error. The second choice is in violation of the premise that I cannot be wrong, so that conclusion is not possible.

But God is not limited as you are,… in time.

Now with regard to your idea that if you do raise your hand that is what God knew, and if you did not raise your and then He knew that instead works only if you prevent God from ever making a prediction known to any witness, because the minute He does He cannot know something else from what He predicted if indeed that is what you decide to do in two minutes.

So your idea saves our free will, but at the expense that we have an infallible God, who cannot make predictions.

“Prediction” is another “time-bound” concept.

You insist on limiting God to time-bound concepts, which is your primary error.

It all boils down to whether you accept that God IS in fact omnipotent (omniscient) and He HAS in fact granted us free will, which are BOTH necessary a priori axioms that are to be unconditionally accepted.

If you DON’T accept these things as axiomatic a priori conditions, then you CAN’T accept God as God, and are simply trying to prove the non-existence of God,… whether you realize you’re doing that or not.

That is why it’s GREAT to explore theories like yours, which shed HUGE amounts of light on the nature of God,… but also why it’s TERRIFICALLY BAD to push for such God-destroying theories as reality.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Benadam]

I agree with the second part. The way the first part is worded leads to problems, however.

It is necessarily the case that I will either raise my hand or not raise my hand. It is also necessarily the case that God knows which I will do. It is not necessarily the case, however, that I will raise my hand. It is entirely possible that I NOT raise my hand. In that case, “not raising my hand” is what God knows.

But as you said, knowing something, even knowing it infallibly, is not equivalent to forcing it to happen.

(Edited part) The above is also why I would disagree with Michael’s last post.

I agree. the word 'necessary implies a need. God’s knowing of course does not impose a need to will what He knows.

 

[michael_legna]

Keikiolu:

For God to be able to do anything, without restriction, is swhat God CAN do. He is therefore omnipotent (capable of all things).

For God not to do a thing which He has covented to not-do is merely God’s free will choice, and is not the same thing as His not being able to do it.

In other words, there IS a difference (logically though not practically) between “not being able to do” and “not wanting to do”, a thing.

God can’t destroy His own free will, as that would destroy His omnipotence, which, being an integral part of God Himself, can’t be destroyed.

Therefore, your proposition that God can “destroy God” is provably an error.

I disagree - because God also cannot sin.

Your attempt to divide the issue of His ability to do things into two categories - either being less than omnipotent or His free will choice - means that you have a question to answer.

Is God’s inability to sin a statement of His lack of omnipotence or is it a His choice as part of His free will?

The Church says He cannot sin, it is part of His nature. To me that means that He can be limited in His actions and not be destroyed as you put it.

Therefore His choice to self limit would also not result in a destruction of God either.

 

[Benadam]

I disagree - because God also cannot sin.

Your attempt to divide the issue of His ability to do things into two categories - either being less than omnipotent or His free will choice - means that you have a question to answer.

Is God’s inability to sin a statement of His lack of omnipotence or is it a His choice as part of His free will?

The Church says He cannot sin, it is part of His nature. To me that means that He can be limited in His actions and not be destroyed as you put it.

Therefore His choice to self limit would also not result in a destruction of God either.

He cannot sin is better said He does not sin. God can do anything He chooses and if God has chosen it, it is not sin.

 

[michael_legna]

Keikiolu:

Because you are assuming that one KNOWS BEFORE the thing happening, which is an assumption of time like ours.

Since God exists “outside” time as we know it, the causal link between “absolutely knowing” and “forcing” doesn’t apply.

But it does not matter if God is inside the concept of time or not. We are inside of time and it is inside of time that our free will exerts itself. So anything, (whether inside time or out) affects what we must do it means our free will is limited. If God knows before or after or aside the moment of our decision it doesn’t change that He cannot be wrong (if He does not self limit) and if He cannot be wrong, we cannot choose anything other than what He knows, knew or will know what we did, or do or will do.

 

[michael_legna]

Benadam:

He cannot sin is better said He does not sin. God can do anything He chooses and if God has chosen it, it is not sin.

I think you will have to support this claim of better wording from a Church source in order to be convincing.

Besides all you are doing is going along with my thesis that God can choose to not do something and that limitation does not destroy Him as you claimed my idea led to.

Either way you are supporting my position.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu
*For God to be able to do anything, without restriction, is swhat God CAN do. He is therefore omnipotent (capable of all things).

For God not to do a thing which He has covented to not-do is merely God’s free will choice, and is not the same thing as His not being able to do it.

In other words, there IS a difference (logically though not practically) between “not being able to do” and “not wanting to do”, a thing.

God can’t destroy His own free will, as that would destroy His omnipotence, which, being an integral part of God Himself, can’t be destroyed.

Therefore, your proposition that God can “destroy God” is provably an error.*

I disagree - because God also cannot sin.

Your attempt to divide the issue of His ability to do things into two categories - either being less than omnipotent or His free will choice - means that you have a question to answer.

Is God’s inability to sin a statement of His lack of omnipotence or is it a His choice as part of His free will?

He has no choice in the matter as to His nature. If He could “choose” His nature, He could choose to be not-God, which would negate Himself.

You confuse “choice of doing” with “choice of being”.

HE IS (aka Yahweh). Not the opposite.

The Church says He cannot sin, it is part of His nature. To me that means that He can be limited in His actions and not be destroyed as you put it.

God cannot choose to sin. It is not a choice. Therefore, He is not limited.

He is never limited in His actions (axiomatically due that being impossible), and your seeing His inability to be not-God as a LIMIT to His behavior simply illustrates your non-understanding of what “limit” means in relation to God.

Since you don’t accept (apparently) that God IS IN NO WAY LIMITED and may act in any way HE SEES FIT, you impose this so-called self-imposed limit (which isn’t a limit at all) on God simply to give a “reason” for God to be limited so as to support your theory.

In other words: You limit God to not-God so that you can explain your perception of God as a limited God.

Therefore His choice to self limit would also not result in a destruction of God either.

He doesn’t EVER limit Himself.

He merely chooses not to do a thing. That is not limiting Himself. It is simply expressing His will.

For God to be limited in an “eternal” sense, even via the impossibility of self-limiting, negates God as God.

If you want a personal proof of the non-existence of God, you’ve found it…!

If you want the truth, though, you simply accept the truth, which is that God is omnipotent AND we have free will simultaneously.

 

[Benadam]

I think you will have to support this claim of better wording from a Church source in order to be convincing.

Besides all you are doing is going along with my thesis that God can choose to not do something and that limitation does not destroy Him as you claimed my idea led to.

Either way you are supporting my position.

I’m adding God’s omnibenevolence. God is good and we are not able to think of God as having a limitation of choice because of sin. That is a human limitation. It is possible for us to choose something that lacks good. God is not limited in this way. God defines what is and isn’t defined by what is. That’s what this discussion reduces God to when we say that ‘cannot’ implies some limitation of choice attached to God. Whatever God does is good and is not sin. Sin does not exist in God’s creation. nly what has been recreated by the will of others does sin exist.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu
Because you are assuming that one KNOWS BEFORE the thing happening, which is an assumption of time like ours.

Since God exists “outside” time as we know it, the causal link between “absolutely knowing” and “forcing” doesn’t apply.

But it does not matter if God is inside the concept of time or not.

We are inside of time and it is inside of time that our free will exerts itself. So anything, (whether inside time or out) affects what we must do it means our free will is limited.

What…?

We mustn’t DO anything…!

We are free to do as we will. Whatever we DO do, though, is what was to happen, as God sees it, and how we are TO see it once what we’ve done has happened.

You are not a puppet. But what you did is what God willed to happen. What you will do is yet for you to WILL to do, under the gift of free will of God, which He will not violate.

If God knows before or after or aside the moment of our decision it doesn’t change that He cannot be wrong (if He does not self limit) and if He cannot be wrong, we cannot choose anything other than what He knows, knew or will know what we did, or do or will do.

Once again you’re applying “time terms” to God’s actions.

God knows everything because everywhen is simultaneously before Him to know.

He can change anything, anywhen, and it is all known as what it is,… the universe.

He can change anything “again” (whatever “again” means to God!), anywhen whatsoever, and it is still all known as what it is,… the universe.

Does that mean there are two universes? No. There is one universe, which is under the omnipotent control of God, which has in it certain agents of “free will” who do as they WILL as is possible by them.

How does this strange “omnipotence” control work when you have free agents in the system, such that the overall total control of the system exists “around” the freedom of the agents?

Beats me…!

That’s why they call it a mystery.

Do keep trying to “solve” it though,… as that is the BEST way yet found to “proving” the silliness of those who claim God is not-God.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Pat_the_Cat]

God gave us free will and for it to be truly free it means we must be able to make any choice we wish.

First and formost your understanding of “Free Will” is not entirely correct. Free Will is NOT the ability to do whatever you want, but the freedom to reject God or accept Him. You can “Choose” to co-operate with his grace or you can “choose” not to.

If free will meant that you can do whatever you want, then you could “choose” to levitate, or have x-ray vision or make your hair change color if you “Wanted” to. But you can’t. You are only able to do what is within your nature (i.e. help people, pray, eat, sleep etc.) And because our “nature” is broken (as a result of “The Fall”) then we are inclined to do things that are not in our nature (ie Steal, fight, kill, abort, over-indulge etc.)

If you start your line of thinking from an unknown, you very often have to change something that **is **known, for your theory to hold.
Start by finding out what we do know about God.
GOD IS ALL POWERFULL:OMNIPOTENT
GOD IS ALL KNOWING: OMNISCIENT

Any other “theory” is heretical. No matter how much you may believe it.

 

[Pax]

This is an interesting discussion with some fine exchanges from both sides. The bottom line for me rests in just a few things.

1. Knowledge, foreknowledge, and post event knowledge are not the matter of causation.
2. Causation is a matter of will and action. Knowledge can be totally passive. Post event knowledge is the easiest starting point for understanding this concept.
3. Scripture tells us that we can resist God and His grace. He allows us to do so. Likewise, scripture tells us that if God wills something to happen then no one can prevent His will from being fulfilled.
4. There are no purposeful distinctions to be made in certain/perfect knowledge of a future outcome whether it be the knowledge held by God or a human being in terms of its impact on free will. The argument that says otherwise denies the basic substance of knowledge and turns it into something different than what it is.
5. If I as a human being have been gifted with the absolute certainty through faith and a revelation by grace that a certain event will happen in exactly 20 minutes from now in downtown Bejing, I am in no position to influence the event one way or the other. I simply know that it is going to happen. God in his infinite knowledge knows everything, but He “chooses” to let things happen as products of our free will.
6. Free will is a gift from God that makes us fully human. Remove our free will and we are no longer human beings.

 

[michael_legna]

Pax:

This is an interesting discussion with some fine exchanges from both sides.

Thank you for your reasoned approach to this discussion. I am responding to your post for two reasons, first it did not get personal or attacking and did not use strawman representations of my position, and secondly by answering your points I think I cover the issue of time relationship the other brought up.

Pax:

The bottom line for me rests in just a few things.

1. Knowledge, foreknowledge, and post event knowledge are not the matter of causation.
2. Causation is a matter of will and action. Knowledge can be totally passive. Post event knowledge is the easiest starting point for understanding this concept.
3. Scripture tells us that we can resist God and His grace. He allows us to do so. Likewise, scripture tells us that if God wills something to happen then no one can prevent His will from being fulfilled.
4. There are no purposeful distinctions to be made in certain/perfect knowledge of a future outcome whether it be the knowledge held by God or a human being in terms of its impact on free will. The argument that says otherwise denies the basic substance of knowledge and turns it into something different than what it is.

They can be if we do not place other limitations on the knower. For instance we would all agree that knowing what someone did after the fact, is not a limitation on their free will. But it can become a limitation if one assumes this individual could then travel backward in time and tell someone else what it was they saw us do. Now some could say that since the individual went back in time, before we did what they saw us do, that we can do anything we choose when that time comes around. But this is not the case if the individual is infallible. God can make prophecies and reveal them to people before the event and He will not be wrong. That means those people He prophesied about MUST do exactly what He said they would do. No free will.

This is why God being outside of time does not eliminate the causal problem with free will.

Pax:

1. If I as a human being have been gifted with the absolute certainty through faith and a revelation by grace that a certain event will happen in exactly 20 minutes from now in downtown Bejing, I am in no position to influence the event one way or the other. I simply know that it is going to happen. God in his infinite knowledge knows everything, but He “chooses” to let things happen as products of our free will.

You don’t influence what is going to happen, but God does by the mere fact that He cannot be wrong. If the people involved in the event had a truly free will they could make any choice they wanted to, but since God and now you know in advance which choice they do make, they have no choice but to choose what it is you know they will choose. This is not free will.

Pax:

1. Free will is a gift from God that makes us fully human. Remove our free will and we are no longer human beings.

Which is precisely why God must have established a covenant with us as part of the gift of free will where He chooses not to know everything we might choose, in exactly the same way He has chosen not to destroy the world by flood ever again in the covenant with Noah. He is able to do one, He is certainly able to do the other.

 

[Pax]

You are still confusing the definitions of knowledge and causation. God’s foreknowledge and my foreknowledge are not different in terms of causation. If I possess absolute foreknowledge than your logic about God’s foreknowledge and free will must also apply to me because our certain foreknowledge is the same.

The solution to the difficulty is understanding that knowledge and causation are not the same thing. If you blend or confuse them in any way, you will distort the reality of one or both.

 

[Keikiolu]

…{snip}…

They can be if we do not place other limitations on the knower. For instance we would all agree that knowing what someone did after the fact, is not a limitation on their free will. But it can become a limitation if one assumes this individual could then travel backward in time and tell someone else what it was they saw us do. Now some could say that since the individual went back in time, before we did what they saw us do, that we can do anything we choose when that time comes around. But this is not the case if the individual is infallible. God can make prophecies and reveal them to people before the event and He will not be wrong.

That means those people He prophesied about MUST do exactly what He said they would do. No free will.

This is why God being outside of time does not eliminate the causal problem with free will

…{snip}…

Since your goal is to reduce God to not-God, as:

*) only not-God can “travel back in time”, because God does not exist in time. He is only seen as “in time” by humans, who have no concept whatsoever of the “environment” which God exists in.

*) only not-God would arrange a situation such that His “prophesy” literally forced a person to do something against their will. That is an impossibility because while it is possible for a human to posit such a theory, just as one can posit the idea of God creating a rock so large that God can’t move it, that theory is simply a statement of misunderstanding concerning God’s nature versus His choices.

…yet you don’t realize that you ARE doing that, you are simply “buried” in the intricacies of your “logic” and can’t see what you’re doing…!

God cannot choose to change God’s nature, and to either say that God isn’t omnipotent or to say that God does violate man’s free will is to state that God can choose to change God’s nature.

[Edited by Moderator]

Good luck in your endeavors to understand God better…!

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[JRKH]

I have been following this debate with some interest but would like to cut to the 64 dollar question:

If you resolve this question what will you do with the information?

How will it change your actions?

How will it make you a better Christian?

Will it make you try harder to gain heaven or will it make you give up because it is “pre-ordained”?

Don’t get me wrong, the question is fascinating, but is it relevent to what we as Christians should be doing and how we should be living our lives?

James

 

[michael_legna]

Keikiolu:

Since your goal is to reduce God to not-God, as:

My goal is not to reduce God in anyway.

No amount of you putting up a strawman of my position is going to move this discussion along so if that is all you have to contribute to it you may as well just stop here.

Keikiolu:

God cannot choose to change God’s nature,

Excuse me but aren’t you the one that said when God promised to never destroy the world by flood, that He was merely choosing not to? That because He was all powerful He could if He wanted to. Why then can’t God choose to not know our every decision in such a way as to be able to prophesy it in advance of our actions? Is this not the exact same type of choice? That is what I mean by a self imposed limit.

Keikiolu:

and to either say that God isn’t omnipotent or to say that God does violate man’s free will is to state that God can choose to change God’s nature.

No, it is merely rebutting your understanding of God’s nature.

 

[michael_legna]

JRKH:

I have been following this debate with some interest but would like to cut to the 64 dollar question:

If you resolve this question what will you do with the information?

How will it change your actions?

I think if this solution could be resolved (not at this level of course but if the Church could accept it in the way they accept Aquinas’ proofs) it would help significantly with evangelization, since I know from experience that the issue of the paradox of free will and omniscience is a major stumbling block for the more intellectual individuals of the secular world.

That is why I don’t think it is irrelevent to what we as Christians should be doing and how we should be living our lives.