Does Omniscience limit free will?

[Shike]

No. Can you read?

Have you got anything more than empty claims?

Do you have anything more than empty criticisms?

Do the work. Think it through. What makes it true that you ate bacon or didn’t eat bacon today? Was it the knowledge of someone besides you, or was it the fact that you did or did not eat bacon today?

Not so empty, eh.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

As far as definitions go:

If God is omnipotent, then He ultimately controls everything everyone does.
He not only knows everything everyone does, He also controls it.

Omnipotent has no relevance of what is known to the knower. Simply because events are foreknown to this knower, inasmuch He always knows the truth value of all events whether by perceptual or conceptual foreknowledge, does not mean the knower controls the events. How are events are known to Him yet uncontrolled to retain the free will of rational souls, is because the knower is atemporal is able to see temporal events as an eternal “now.”

For more in depth study I suggest St. Boethius.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

I believe that God created us with the greatest gift of love, not free will. God gave us the greatest commandments, to love God and to love our neighbour, if I am to live by these commands, I should do this freely and willingly. The freedom to love, also gives us the freedom to do evil.

peace

Eric

 

[tonyrey]

I believe that God created us with the greatest gift of love, not free will. God gave us the greatest commandments, to love God and to love our neighbour, if I am to live by these commands, I should do this freely and willingly. The freedom to love, also gives us the freedom to do evil.

peace

Eric

Love is inseparable from free will!

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Hi tonrey,

Love is inseparable from free will!

I agree with you, but if we focused more on love than free will, then this thread would be called

Does Omniscience limit Love?

It seems to take the edge off the free will debate.

peace

Eric

 

[tonyrey]

Hi tonrey,

I agree with you, but if we focused more on love than free will, then this thread would be called

Does Omniscience limit Love?

It seems to take the edge off the free will debate.

peace

Eric

You are right, of course, Eric! I just wanted to counter the popular illusion that we “fall in love” - as if we have no say in the matter.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Hello tonyrey,

When Jesus spent his time on Earth he would have lived by the greatest commandments.

Jesus loves God the Father with all his heart, soul, mind and strength.
Jesus loves each and every one of us as he loves himself.

If God the Father and God the Son love us as they love themselves, what does that do to the omniscience debate? Can they love us more than they love themselves?

Blessings

Eric

 

[cho_pilo]

Do you have anything more than empty criticisms?

Do the work. Think it through. What makes it true that you ate bacon or didn’t eat bacon today? Was it the knowledge of someone besides you, or was it the fact that you did or did not eat bacon today?

Not so empty, eh.

I think the clue is in the post fom your link:

One of my professors didn’t think the idea of an ‘eternal now’ fixed the problem. He summarized the argument this way:

1. Necessarily, if God knows that p, then p.
2. Necessarily God knows that p.
3. Therefore, necessarily p.
   You can see that 3, the conclusion, does not follow from both premises.

Read that. Ask yourself “Do you have anything more than empty criticisms?,” “Does it not?” And then ask yourself “Why so?”

Let me simplify fo you…

1. IF the cake is chocolate then I will eat it.
2. The cake is chocolate.
3. No other conclusion possible - I will eat the cake.

Still wrong.
Either God knows or He doesn’t. If He does we can have no choice.

 

[Shike]

I think the clue is in the post fom your link:

Read that. Ask yourself “Do you have anything more than empty criticisms?,” “Does it not?” And then ask yourself “Why so?”

Let me simplify fo you…

1. IF the cake is chocolate then I will eat it.
2. The cake is chocolate.
3. No other conclusion possible - I will eat the cake.

You’ll have to spell out your position; I shouldn’t have to guess.
I don’t see the relevance of the three line argument you present. But if I were to guess: really, if you want to assume that determinism is true from the get-go, that just begs the question.

The main question pertinent to the original post is what is the ground of truth. Logically (atemporarily), does knowledge cause fact or does fact cause knowledge? Once you figure out which one is true, then you should be able to see that divine omniscience doesn’t limit free-will.

Of course you could say there isn’t any free-will to begin with, but as I said, that is begging the question and not what the original poster was asking. We could go down that road if you like…

Oh, and by the way… I can’t find anywhere that last quote that you attributed to me. Perhaps I didn’t say it?? Doesn’t sound like me.

 

[cho_pilo]

Oh, and by the way… I can’t find anywhere that last quote that you attributed to me. Perhaps I didn’t say it?? Doesn’t sound like me.

Here…

Check out my post #5 on the following thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=598457

 

[cho_pilo]

I don’t see the relevance of the three line argument you present.

Yet they were YOUR argument.

But if I were to guess: really, if you want to assume that determinism is true from the get-go, that just begs the question.

Ah, maybe you should read the thread. No such assumption was made.

The main question pertinent to the original post is what is the ground of truth. Logically (atemporarily), does knowledge cause fact or does fact cause knowledge? Once you figure out which one is true, then you should be able to see that divine omniscience doesn’t limit free-will.

Another empty claim.

 

[Shike]

Yet they were YOUR argument.

Ah, maybe you should read the thread. No such assumption was made.

Another empty claim.

Not much to comment on here really. I would engage in dialog if you would. But why post if you don’t want to?

And yes, you misquoted me. Check the bottom of your post #28.