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

[davidv]

That’s a good point.

I am not saying our choices line up with what God’s infallible choices, I am saying in an argument where we assume God to be omniscient AND not limiting Himself in what He knows about our “choices” then our choice must line up with what He knows.

Obviously the world works differently than that, so yours is another reason we can conclude that God must choose not to know our every decision (without affecting His omniscience) in much the same way that He chooses not to destroy the world by flood (without affecting His omnipotence).

Why do you continue equating “knowing” with “causing”. There is no way i agree with the conclusion you stated.

 

[Pax]

Yes the one to one correlation proves it.

…

This is a statement not a proof. I gave you a one to one correlation with my example of the traffic light. Suppose someone comes up with other examples of one to one correlations as I did. Would this begin to convince you? Likewise, there are numerous examples in social science that show that correlations occur that have nothing to do with cause and effect.

Your burden is to prove that the one to one relationship of God’s knowledge to our actions is the underlying cause of those actions. So far you have not been able to do that. There is no third invisible cause of our actions. It is our will and our actions that are determinant. I have given you clear cases on the human level that demonstrate the separation of knowledge and cause. In order for your position to withstand the test of scrutiny you must be able to demonstrate that my examples do not prove that separation.

If you claim that my example of the traffic light is true in human experience and that knowledge and cause are, indeed, separate then you must accept that knowledge and cause can also be separate in the case of God. If you do not admit to this then you are claiming that I can separate my knowledge from cause where as God cannot. Somehow, I do not think that any human being can achieve something that God cannot.

 

[michael_legna]

Pax:

This is a statement not a proof.

The proof was included in the original post where I pointed out the only four possibilities which can explain a one to one correspondence.

Remember - both of our choices (where God’s knowledge was infallible) matched what God knew, there was an unavoidable direct one to one correspondence between our choice and God’s knowledge.

That shows that one of three things is going on -
–either God’s infallible knowledge causes our choice
OR
–our choice causes God’s knowledge
OR
–there is a third force at work here we cannot see.
OR
–it is strictly chance which is at work here

Those are the only option in a direct one to one correspondence.

I think we can rule our God relying on chance and I think we can rule out the idea that our choice causes God’s knowledge and I am willing to rule out postulating an unknown force.

That leaves us with God’s knowledge causing our choice.

Pax:

I gave you a one to one correlation with my example of the traffic light. Suppose someone comes up with other examples of one to one correlations as I did. Would this begin to convince you? Likewise, there are numerous examples in social science that show that correlations occur that have nothing to do with cause and effect.

I showed you the error in your example - and pointed out that your could not extend examples to extremes and expect you conclusions to hold.

Your example of the street light is not an absolute, it does not include infallible knowledge, there is the possibility of you being wrong, just as their are in social sciences. That means there is a chance that the street light changes at a time other than expected (due to mechanical failure for instance). If God was making the prediction, with His infallible knowledge then even mechanical failure would be ruled out, just as free will is.

Pax:

There is no third invisible cause of our actions. It is our will and our actions that are determinant.

So it is our will which causes God’s knowledge? If you want them to be the determinant in the one to one relationship that is what you must be claiming. The problem with this approach is that our will is bound to time and so it cannot affect God outside of time such that He could know our actions in such a way as to predict them in an early point of the time line before our will was in force on this choice.

Pax:

I have given you clear cases on the human level that demonstrate the separation of knowledge and cause. In order for your position to withstand the test of scrutiny you must be able to demonstrate that my examples do not prove that separation.

I have done that already because your examples were all based on incomplete and fallible forms of knowledge and you wish to extend those ideas to a form of knowledge that if infallible. That extension is not valid.

Pax:

If you claim that my example of the traffic light is true in human experience and that knowledge and cause are, indeed, separate then you must accept that knowledge and cause can also be separate in the case of God.

No, you cannot extrapolate from partial knowledge to omniscience any more than you can extrapolate from minor forces to omnipotence.

Pax:

If you do not admit to this then you are claiming that I can separate my knowledge from cause where as God cannot.

It is the nature of your knowledge, it is not that you are separating your knowledge from cause. It is that your knowledge is not perfect enough to generate cause.

 

[Pax]

…
…
So it is our will which causes God’s knowledge? If you want them to be the determinant in the one to one relationship that is what you must be claiming. The problem with this approach is that our will is bound to time and so it cannot affect God outside of time such that He could know our actions in such a way as to predict them in an early point of the time line before our will was in force on this choice.
…
…

I consider this to be a very poor choice of words. In fact, I’m not really sure of what you mean. God is in no way shape or form bound by time. Likewise, our wills do not affect God. He simply knows. This knowledge is not to be equated with causation **unless **God chooses to act upon the events before Him.

The bible indicates that we have free will.
Catholic doctrine indicates that we have free will.
The bible indicates that God knows all things and nothing is hidden from Him.
Catholic doctrine indicates that God knows all things and that nothing is hidden from Him.

I realize that there may be difficulty in understanding these things, but that is what we are taught to believe. Do you believe these things, or are you going to let the difficulties get in your way? That is the real question.

 

[Benadam]

michael_legna;2929771 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.:

I agree that the human acts foreknown by God MUST be done but I disagree with the reason you argue those acts must be done. You argue that they must be carried out because God knew they would be. I argue they must be carried out because they are required to fulfill the desire that we freely choose to satisfy.

Scripture bears this out.

The exchange of words that preceded Judas’s departure from the upper room during the Last Supper reveal Judas’ commitment to satisfy desires even knowing that they were not what God willed for him to do but what God knew would happen.

Can God’s omniscience rule over God’s will?

Jesus reveals privately to John that Judas will dip his hand in the dish. Judas is freely willing to satisfy a desire This demonstrates foreknowledge of God and John hidden from Judas that didn’t cause the act but leaves the question at hand unresolved except that eating is satisfying a desire and that desire is the cause of the act.

What happened next reveals that Judas commited himself to satisfy desires that required acts that he knew would also fulfill God’s foreknowledge.

The scripture describes an exchange between Jesus and Judas that only happens between a person who knows what the other is about to do. But in the case of Judas his will was not to fulfill what is divinely foreknown and revealed but he only wills the fulfillment of the desire that gave birth to the acts foreknown.

If what is foreknown MUST happen because God knows it this event reveals that God’s foreknowledge imposes limitations on what Hewills but not on what we will. We know that God did not will that Judas choose to satisfy evil desire that gave birth to sin. Butr we know God foreknew it . Our will is what determines what God knows we will do and what God wills is what He knows will He will do. What happens in time is determined by our will it’s end is determined by His.

 

[michael_legna]

Pax:

I consider this to be a very poor choice of words. In fact, I’m not really sure of what you mean. God is in no way shape or form bound by time. Likewise, our wills do not affect God. He simply knows.

I was only arguing that if YOU deny the other three options for the one to one correspondence you are left with our will affecting God’s knowledge. I don’t accept that conclusion but it is the only one you are left with. I prefer to think that the infinite potential of God’s infallible knowledge of our choices limits them and removes free will, unless we accept that God has chosen not to know, in much that same way He has chosen not to act - getting us back to the comparison between free will and the destroying the earth by flood.

Pax:

This knowledge is not to be equated with causation **unless **God chooses to act upon the events before Him.

To say He simply knows is to call this a Mystery and to give up trying to add understanding to faith. That is ok, if that is satisfactory to you, but it does not assist those who remain outside the faith because of this paradox remaining unresolved.

Pax:

The bible indicates that we have free will.
Catholic doctrine indicates that we have free will.
The bible indicates that God knows all things and nothing is hidden from Him.
Catholic doctrine indicates that God knows all things and that nothing is hidden from Him.

Of course none of these are precise in what they mean, and they also say that God is all powerful, yet we have seen they do not mean precisely that He chooses to do all things. In fact there are things He has PROMISED not to do. So too a decision such as this, with God choosing not to know, would resolve the free will paradox.

Pax:

I realize that there may be difficulty in understanding these things, but that is what we are taught to believe. Do you believe these things, or are you going to let the difficulties get in your way? That is the real question.

I do believe them, but I believe they are not precisely and completely defined, just as His omnipotence is not precisely and completely defined, so as to allow room for Him to self limit by covenants.

 

[michael_legna]

Benadam:

michael_legna:

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.

I agree that the human acts foreknown by God MUST be done but I disagree with the reason you argue those acts must be done. You argue that they must be carried out because God knew they would be. I argue they must be carried out because they are required to fulfill the desire that we freely choose to satisfy.

But that desire too is caused by His foreknowledge since He knows of that too. The only way to keep God’s all encompassing infallible knowledge from causing our impulses, emotions, actions and choices is to either have Him choose not to know all these things or to declare this a mystery. Otherwise we cannot feel or act or choose contrary to what He knows we will do.

Benadam:

Scripture bears this out.

The exchange of words that preceded Judas’s departure from the upper room during the Last Supper reveal Judas’ commitment to satisfy desires even knowing that they were not what God willed for him to do but what God knew would happen.

Of course you only get that conclusion by assuming that God’s will does not affect our actions and free will. You cannot conclude that from this example unless you first assume it. Also you can get a different conclusion from the same example if you start by assuming God has chosen not to know our every choice.

The first option is that God wanted Judas to betray Jesus and so created a miracle, interfered with Judas’ free will and made him betray Christ. So Judas ended up doing God’s will. I don’t think this option holds up to scrutiny though as we are told God will punish Judas for this betrayal.

Mar 14:21 The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.

But of course there is still another option (the one I propose) and that is that God could predict with very high certainty, but not absolute infallible knowledge, what Judas was considering. Jesus then sent him on his way to do whatever it was that he might do, giving Judas a chance to change his mind and perhaps not betray Jesus. If that had happened God would have come up with another way, I am sure of it. But we know it did not. Still the difference between God being very good at predicting Judas behavior and Him knowing infallibly what Judas would do is the difference between a true free will and the absence of one.

Benadam:

Can God’s omniscience rule over God’s will?

Jesus reveals privately to John that Judas will dip his hand in the dish. Judas is freely willing to satisfy a desire This demonstrates foreknowledge of God and John hidden from Judas that didn’t cause the act but leaves the question at hand unresolved except that eating is satisfying a desire and that desire is the cause of the act.

But as I covered above God by knowing the desire as well is the cause of it too, IF He knows the desire in an infallible way, because for Judas to not have the desire would be to make God out to be wrong and that cannot be. It is this “cannot be” that represents the potential which is the cause by which God’s knowledge affects our free will.

Benadam:

What happened next reveals that Judas commited himself to satisfy desires that required acts that he knew would also fulfill God’s foreknowledge.

The scripture describes an exchange between Jesus and Judas that only happens between a person who knows what the other is about to do. But in the case of Judas his will was not to fulfill what is divinely foreknown and revealed but he only wills the fulfillment of the desire that gave birth to the acts foreknown.

If what is foreknown MUST happen because God knows it this event reveals that God’s foreknowledge imposes limitations on what He wills but not on what we will. We know that God did not will that Judas choose to satisfy evil desire that gave birth to sin.

We know that, through faith, but there is no logical argument or mechanism for how this lack of God’s will affecting us operates. That is what this whole discussion is about - offering an explanation that satisfies those who have faith seeking understanding.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Somehow, I do not think that any human being can achieve something that God cannot.

Salvation through Jesus Christ?

 

[Pax]

Salvation through Jesus Christ?

Please explain. I’m a little dense.

 

[Pat_the_Cat]

If you know something and you cannot possibly be wrong about the event you influence that event such that it can only be the way you know it to be. Otherwise you are not infallible. It is the absoluteness of the definition of infallibility that is the issue here so I do not agree with your assessment of me being challenged.

If you can tell me how this event can be different than you know it to be and yet not lose your infallibility I will admit I do not understand the definitions associated with this issue.

Let me ***try ***to explain. Imagine, if you will, that I have a time machine (like “Back to the Future”) and I decided to follow you through your whole life right up to the day when you died. I have now witnessed every single choice that you every made and it’s outcome. I know exactly what decisions you will make for the rest of your life. My knowledge of your decisions is perfect, because I have witnessed them personally. I have not made those decisions for you, I have not taken away your freedom to choose; but I do have infallible knowledge of how you WILL act in every circumstance that will arise, for the rest of your life.

In what way do you think that this “knowledge” removes your freedom to choose?

knowing what you will do, is not the same as doing it for you, or removing your choice. :nope:

 

[michael_legna]

Pat the Cat:

Let me ***try ***to explain. Imagine, if you will, that I have a time machine (like “Back to the Future”) and I decided to follow you through your whole life right up to the day when you died. I have now witnessed every single choice that you every made and it’s outcome. I know exactly what decisions you will make for the rest of your life. My knowledge of your decisions is perfect, because I have witnessed them personally. I have not made those decisions for you, I have not taken away your freedom to choose; but I do have infallible knowledge of how you WILL act in every circumstance that will arise, for the rest of your life.

In what way do you think that this “knowledge” removes your freedom to choose?

knowing what you will do, is not the same as doing it for you, or removing your choice. :nope:

No, in your scenario you don’t know what I WILL do - you know what I DID.

But let’s change the situation a bit and say that you did all that, as above, and then used that time machine to go back to the middle of my life (which is now past - since I am dead in your mind) and you predicted infallibly what I am to do in each scenario. I think this is what you intended to suggest anyway right?

You are now present in the situation of choice in two forms, the “observing” you and the “knowing” you. So it becomes that - the reason I did what I did in each situation is because you were there a second time (even if you did not notice it the first time - or maybe you did) and knew in advance what I was about to do and could not possibly be wrong. The presence of the “knowing” version of you kept me from any other choice even though it did not appear that way to the “observing” version of you. If I made any other choice than the one you recorded on the first time through you would be in error. The mere fact of knowing infallibly what I am about to do keeps me from doing anything else.

 

[Nino]

I was watching Lil Bear the other day with our adopted granchild…an angel from Colombia…anyway,she asked how come ‘Owl’ is always so grumpy etc…I thought and said…(once in a while I get it right) well.Owl flies overhead everybody and thus he sees more…and kinda into the future…so he gets kinda sad at times for he can see mistakes coming…!..I dont know about anyone elses ‘Creator’ but He is far superior to any owl or any human…even a TeeVee sports caster or commentator…He just knows…how I dunno …if I knew I have a hunch I could also walk on water and cure people of diseases…but I can’t…as we age we climb higher and higher onto that mountain of life…thus we can ‘see’ more of the earth below…every time I see that adams apple in my male throat I recall a similar incident in some garden when an ancestor also wanted to be on an equal basis with his Creator…mmmmmm …

 

[Roman20]

I guess these kind of things are beyond our scope of understanding.

If God knows everything then he knew adam and eve would eat the apple and he know that serpent would tempt them and that Lucifer would turn against him.

Although there is no debate that there is a God.

That is probably one of the biggest Mythological stories made up by the church its hilarious

adam and eve i mean

 

[Roman20]

I have questions that are alittle confusing to me.

I understand that in the Christian and general Abrahamic religion that we as human beings have free will and our ultimate fate lies in the way we lived our lived on earth.

The good are saved and are to live an eternal life of happiness.

The damned will live in eternal pain and suffering.

So since God is ultimately all knowing and full of knowledge and wisdom, what is the point of our being.

You see, if God is all knowing then technically he knows exactly what I will do before I do it, which technically would mean he already knows if I will be saved or damned. So what is my purpose? Is it some people were made and born to be saved and others are to be damned?

It seems we are all just puppets or a video that was directed.

If we are to have true free will then that mean could not be all omnipotent. His wisdom would have to be limited wouldn’t it?

I don’t mind being a puppet for God and I have no right to question his authority. He created me and he can do as he wishes to me and there is nothing I can do about it. I still have a for God as my creator and God of course loves his creation. I mean anything you create you love and there are many types of love but how does God love us?

Good question its only FREE WILL if there is a choice to select Option B

I am not saying there is not Consequences for every action we take

But those Consequences are more likely to be Our Doing not God s Punishment for choosing option B

The idea that people were born into this world with the intention of them possibly ending up in Hell does not stem from LOVE it stems from Evil and certainly not from FREE WILL.

Again go read the book Hope Beyond Hell it will help you out with these answers and why todays church is in such a state and people are running around with a Fear based Mentality

 

[Pat_the_Cat]

No, in your scenario you don’t know what I WILL do - you know what I DID.

But let’s change the situation a bit and say that you did all that, as above, and then used that time machine to go back to the middle of my life (which is now past - since I am dead in your mind) and you predicted infallibly what I am to do in each scenario. I think this is what you intended to suggest anyway right?

You are now present in the situation of choice in two forms, the “observing” you and the “knowing” you. So it becomes that - the reason I did what I did in each situation is because you were there a second time (even if you did not notice it the first time - or maybe you did) and knew in advance what I was about to do and could not possibly be wrong. The presence of the “knowing” version of you kept me from any other choice even though it did not appear that way to the “observing” version of you. If I made any other choice than the one you recorded on the first time through you would be in error. The mere fact of knowing infallibly what I am about to do keeps me from doing anything else.

Forget about me being there in two forms, it is unimportant and unhelpful to the discussion. In fact forget the whole Time Machine thing because it brings in too many variables that don’t help. God is not within time or space so none of these variables neccessarily apply to our discussion. I admit that this analogy is flawed (as all will be) when comparing to God.

Instead imagine (if you will) that I had a worm-hole that was able to rip through the space-time continuum and allow me to see into the future, without interfering in it, and without leaving the present time; and through this worm hole I was able to see all that you will ever do from now 'til the day you die. I know know every single decision and choice that you make from now till the day you die. How does the fact that I know your every choice determine the choice that you make? After all YOU are the one who makes the choices, not me.

My knowledge of your choice does not in ANY way limit the choice that you would make. In fact, my knowledge of your choice and your fulfillment of my knowledge confirms that the fact that I did know your choices, and that you chose them.

The fact that I would never be wrong, is due to the fact that that you made certian choices, not because of the knowledge I have. I would not have this knowledge, if you had not made these choices. If your choices were different, then so would my knowledge be different.

Your choice does not come from my knowledge, My knowledge comes from your choice.
If your choice differs, then so would my knowledge.

:hypno: :hypno: :hypno: :hypno: :hypno: :hypno: :hypno: :hypno:

 

[michael_legna]

Pat the Cat:

Forget about me being there in two forms, it is unimportant and unhelpful to the discussion.

Not only is it helpful it is crucial. We all have the capability of observing events and knowing what happened - that is not what God is doing when he creates prophecy. Hindsight and prophecy are different, thats the whole point of the miracle!!!
Pat the Cat:

In fact forget the whole Time Machine thing because it brings in too many variables that don’t help.

Once again it is crucial otherwise all we have is hindsight and that is not what God does.
Pat the Cat:

God is not within time or space so none of these variables neccessarily apply to our discussion.

Ah but His prophecies are within the time line so His knowledge is within the time line and that means it has to be accessible prior to the event. So even though He is outside of time, His effects on us are not.
Pat the Cat:

Instead imagine (if you will) that I had a worm-hole that was able to rip through the space-time continuum and allow me to see into the future, without interfering in it,

You are assuming your conclusion. You want to claim to be able to see the future without interfering with it so you can prove God can know the future without interfering with it. This is an invalid form of argument. It is known as using the consequence as the premise.
Pat the Cat:

How does the fact that I know your every choice determine the choice that you make? After all YOU are the one who makes the choices, not me.

Because if you know absolutely what I will do, then your observation and/or the knowledge of it does affect the future in some way to maintain your infallibility.
Pat the Cat:

My knowledge of your choice does not in ANY way limit the choice that you would make. In fact, my knowledge of your choice and your fulfillment of my knowledge confirms that the fact that I did know your choices, and that you chose them.

But the fact that you know them infallibly ahead of time means I CANNOT choose any other way. It all goes back to your assumption (in the premise) being the same as your desired conclusion. This example is logically worse than the one you just abandon.
Pat the Cat:

The fact that I would never be wrong, is due to the fact that that you made certian choices, not because of the knowledge I have.

No, not in this example because you know them before I made them. Remember you are looking into the future, which has not happened yet, so I should be able to make any choice when I get to that moment. But you have already infallibly observed that piece of the time line so you have tainted it for me and I have no recourse but to make the choice you observed.
Pat the Cat:

I would not have this knowledge, if you had not made these choices. If your choices were different, then so would my knowledge be different.

You are using the wrong tenses again. Your observations occurred prior to my arriving at that point in my time line. These are choices I WILL (or WON’T MAKE) they are not choices I HAVE MADE.
Pat the Cat:

Your choice does not come from my knowledge, My knowledge comes from your choice. If your choice differs, then so would my knowledge.

Then you have causality working in reverse by this observation because you know my choices before I actually make them. Remember in this example you are looking into the future from a point on the time line prior to my making these choices. So my choices occur after your observations and so causation has to run backwards down the time line.

You can save all the emoticons too as if I am missing something obvious that everyone else sees. The paradox of free will and omniscience is well known among all the major philosophy studies and is considered unsolved, so I am not alone in this issue. In fact I am willing to bet it is you who are in the minority with regard to this being a real problem or not.

 

[john_doran]

You can save all the emoticons too as if I am missing something obvious that everyone else sees. The paradox of free will and omniscience is well known among all the major philosophy studies and is considered unsolved, so I am not alone in this issue.

well, i’ll agree that the issues surrounding omniscience and free will are well known, but i have to disagree that they’re paradoxical, or that they’re unsolved. they may be unsolved to everyone’s satisfaction, but that doesn’t make the available solutions any less successful - it just makes them contentious.

for example, if one defines “omniscience” as “knowing every true proposition, and no false ones”, then whether or not the fact that if god knows p then p; god knows p; therefore p, is incompatible with *f - *"*p *is freely chosen" - depends on what proposition p stands for.

so. what if p represents “john freely chooses to go the movies”? obviously god’s foreknowledge of propositions of the form “X freely chooses y at time t” are not incompatible with free choices. which means that one needs to know if there are such propositions as this before one can make claims about god’s omniscience. which, in turn, means that omniscience is irrelevant to the question of free choice.

no paradox, no problem.

michael_legna:

In fact I am willing to bet it is you who are in the minority with regard to this being a real problem or not.

maybe so, but so what?

 

[davidv]

But the fact that you know them infallibly ahead of time means I CANNOT choose any other way. It all goes back to your assumption (in the premise) being the same as your desired conclusion. This example is logically worse than the one you just abandon.

I still don’t understand how you have reached this conclusion. Just because something (knowledge) is temporally precedent, how does this necessitate that it is logically precedent(cause)?

 

[bogeydogg]

How does this not violate freewill? This may explain how God can know all things (which is not the question) it does not explain how it leaves us with a truly free choice in any given instance.

Sorry I’ve been busy.

It does not violate free will if one defines free will as the ability to make decisions apart direct from outside coersion. If however free will is defined as the ability to make a decision based entirely upon the actual moral merits of say ‘x’ and ‘y’ then no I don’t believe in that sort of free will because such an idea negates the notion of sin’s effecting our natures. However, just because God has foreknowledge of our decision making based upon His own perfect knowledge of our means ways and motives does not mean that God actually compels us to make a decision for either ‘x’ or ‘y’ in which case our will, though effected by sin and experience, is free from outside pressure placed upon us by the foreknowledge of a sovereign God.

 

[bogeydogg]

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.

The difference is whether or not God compels one to raise his hand.