Free will and foreknowledge revisited

[Confessor01]

I realize that many, many people have probably come across this argument and therefore deem it to be impotent because, well, it’s been around a while. That is generally how we humans deal with such arguments. We normally think that if some argument is common or hackneyed, and if it still hasn’t persuaded everybody of its veracity, then it can’t be correct. I am humbly asking that any readers please ignore the fact that the free will/omniscience argument has been visited many times in the past and look to this argument. It’s not anything special or distinct from older versions of the argument, but I am convinced that omniscience cannot be reconciled with free will. Consequently, I would like to see if anyone can prove the following argument to be unsound. It’s rather brief.

First, knowledge is defined as “true belief.” (I realize that there are many nuances in defining what knowledge is, and that it is most often defined as “justified true belief,” but for argument’s sake all that matters is that knowledge is true belief.)

Argument: If at time T1, God knows that a person S will perform action X at a time T2, then, per the definition of knowledge, it is true at time T1 that S will do X at T2. And if it is true that S will do X at T2, then it is not the case that S can do not-X at T2. And if S cannot do not-X at T2, then he is performing an action without the ability to do otherwise; hence, he has no free will.

Objections considered:

1. God can know what we are doing without causing us to do them.

Yes, but causality is not the scope of this argument. This is whether or not we have the ability to do otherwise.

1. Good friends or spouses can know how we’ll behave at some future time, but that doesn’t imply that we are forced to act that way.

On the contrary, no one except God knows infallibly how we will act. And if they did, then we would indeed be forced to act a certain way!

1. It is improper to describe God as knowing a “future” action. He is outside of time.

Although God is timeless, it does not follow that He does not comprehend time. He created it! And this is the same God who acted within history and fulfilled prophecies. To say that He cannot understand the concept of “future actions” is therefore false.

 

[atman]

Well, first of all, you are very right in asking this question. Like the problem of evil, it has always attracted intelligent men to its cause. The answer(s) all involve a certain de-anthropomorphizing of the Divine.

First of all, I would really ask you to reconsider your definition of knowledge! Plato (not exactly infallible, but always worth referencing) declares very explicitly in his Republic that knowledge is not true belief. Instead, it is a grasping of why, of how. Aristotle followed suit. It may, or may not, leave the argument unaltered, but it is a distinction of incredible importance for several reasons, philosophical and apologetical, which we do not really have the time for here. Anyway, on to the argument.

The answer rests on divorcing God from humanity as regards time. Human beings exist in time, and are constantly losing the past to the future, and have a rather tough time in defining what the present is. Time can be very well likened to a line, or, if you are picky and not Aristotle, a line segment. We are captive to this line, we cannot exist outside it. All judgements we make come from one isolated spot on this line. God, on the other, is like the paper on which the line is drawn, to take a splendid metaphor from Mere Christianity. He stands as an Observer, totally impartial to all spots on the line. None of them is His “now,” they are all the same to Him. In this sense, we could even call God “past time,” existing where time is finished, though this might not be entirely accurate. In any case, you see how the argument falls down. God observes, He does not necessitate or perceive necessity.

Now, this seems very similar to your third objection. But your reply to that objection contains a problem. God may indeed know what is the future for us, but that does not mean it is the future for Him. “Future” is a very relative term, and only applicable to a being that exists in the “present.” He understands perfectly what a future event is, but there are for Him no future events. To admit that would be to admit that for God, something is relative. That is the metaphysical solution, and would suffice for a Deity like Aristotle’s Prime Mover, Plato’s Form of Good, or possibly a Deist’s Great Watchmaker. But it does not solve the problem entirely of a Christian God, Who reveals Himself at definite times in this temporal world. My response is that we should again turn to the image of time as a line. Or perhaps even better, let us compare time to the keyboard on an organ, and God as the Organist (music-musician metaphors may be our best symbolism for God on this earth, and organ music is, well, churchy!). Each key on the keyboard is a certain moment in time. Now, for God to act upon (press down) a certain moment (key) does not remove Him from eternity (put Him into the keyboard). Indeed, He is performing that act eternally! God may have uttered the words “I am That I Am” to Moses in the past by our reckoning, but considered from God’s point of view (that is to say, reality as it truly is), He is uttering that to Moses forever.

I hope this helped your understanding of the matter. Ask for clarification if necessary. If you want a truly wonderful account, Lewis gives one in Mere Christianity. Peace be with you always!

-Leo Carton

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I have a bit of a problem in this area due to an incident the night my father died. He died several kilometers away, unknown to me. He appeared however in my room, and during the ensuing argument, conversation, acrimony, he at one stage cried out, " I always was doomed! I didn’t really have any choice!" Later however in the same incident he said, “I was WIILLING” to act as he did (rather cruelly - in some ways he wrecked my life).

From time to time though even when he was still alive, I would see quite demonic looks on his face, so something had a grip on him.

Now at first glance these two statements seem to contradict each other. On the one hand he’s predestined, yet on the other has free will.

Now I suppose the better part of two years ago I was arguing with atheists on a google site about Near Death Experiences (NDE’s), and getting nowhere. So I prayed I might meet someone who’d had an NDE. No more than two or three days later I was sitting in the Maxi Taxi I was driving in a suburb called Boondall (Brisbane Australia) when a job came up on the screen for a Maxi at another suburb called Brighton. I ignored it for a short while, but when it remained there I went for it and got it. So I drove off to Brighton to a nursing home called Eventide.

I found the fare, who’d been just about to give up. However he hadn’t wanted a Maxi, but the glitch in the system had reserved it form me. Had it been sent as an ordinary cab job, I would not have even been aware of it. So off we went. He wanted to go to Royal Brisbane Hospital, which was a good half hour away. Yet we’d only been going a couple of minutes when he said, “I"m one of those rare people.” I asked him what he was talking about and he said that he’d been dead for ten minutes after an operation severed an artery.

I won’t go into the rest of it, but what intrigued me even more was that he went to the very same high school as the eldest son of the very same uncle who turned up to tell me my father had died (as mentioned above).

So… I prayed to meet someone with an NDE, and 2 or 3 days later I meet him, partly through a mistake by the radio operator. But a whole series of people had used their free will that day - I started when I wanted, customers deternined where I went, a radio operator made a free choice to make a mistake, and yet I meet this bloke who has not only an NDE, but also a sort of familial relationship to my own father’s unusual death (in the sense of his appearing in my room).

Now this is based on my own personal experience and is not theoretical conjecture.

As far as I’m concerned, despite our free will, predestination also operates. But don’t ask me how.

 

[Confessor01]

atman,

As I said, I’m not worried about an exhaustively correct definition of time. As long as the conditional proposition, “If God knows X, then X is true” is true, then I don’t care with respect to this specific argument how knowledge is defined.

Regarding the “God standing outside the line segment that represents time” picture: that doesn’t, in my estimation, solve the problem. There still has to be a sense in which God knows what point in time is actually occurring now – for if He could not differentiate between say, T1 and T2, then much of what the Bible says is nonsense (how could He make prophecies if all points in time were the same to Him?)

It is irrelevant whether an event is truly future to Him. If you imagine God standing outside the timeline, seeing all events as if present to Him – yet also seeing a small cursor moving across the timeline to represent what part of history is actually occurring – then He would know what events will occur after the point that the cursor is presently at. The events won’t actually be future to Him, but they will still be both (1) future to humans and (2) known by Him, in which case they cannot be performed with free will.

---

Bob Crowley,

It’s interesting that you mention how predestination and freedom can coincide. If someone always acts in accordance with how they will, then they’re acting freely, right? Yet this does not require their choosing how they will, just how they act. In this way moral responsibility and divine foreordination can coincide. (What I have just described is the standard Reformed understanding of predestination and freedom.) Unfortunately, this precludes the “free will” (as opposed to a separate understanding of freedom) that is present in non-Calvinistic theologies.

And your very interesting stories, in my opinion, would be an example of this specific outworking. I would contend that all those people acted freely (i.e. in accordance with their wills/desires – not “free will”), such that God foreordained your exact scenarios down to the last thought.

 

[Eucharisted]

Omniscience and free-will:

God knew Adam would sin, so He prepared the ancient world for the coming of Christ, the first among brethern. He even prophesized Jesus’ coming in Genesis 3:15. God permitted Adam to sin, in light of free-will, and drew out of his sin a greater good: man’s redemption.

So, unless you don’t believe God is Omniscient, don’t believe the Bible, don’t believe Jesus is our Savior, or don’t believe God created man in His Image and Likeness (and since God is free, it follows man has free-will too), than there’s nothing you could possibly argue against. But I know you will. So, in knowledge of that, here is a link to something else I wrote that will help you later on: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5426552&postcount=17

 

[atman]

atman,

As I said, I’m not worried about an exhaustively correct definition of time. As long as the conditional proposition, “If God knows X, then X is true” is true, then I don’t care with respect to this specific argument how knowledge is defined.

Regarding the “God standing outside the line segment that represents time” picture: that doesn’t, in my estimation, solve the problem. There still has to be a sense in which God knows what point in time is actually occurring now – for if He could not differentiate between say, T1 and T2, then much of what the Bible says is nonsense (how could He make prophecies if all points in time were the same to Him?)

It is irrelevant whether an event is truly future to Him. If you imagine God standing outside the timeline, seeing all events as if present to Him – yet also seeing a small cursor moving across the timeline to represent what part of history is actually occurring – then He would know what events will occur after the point that the cursor is presently at. The events won’t actually be future to Him, but they will still be both (1) future to humans and (2) known by Him, in which case they cannot be performed with free will.

Okay, here is what I mean. I now see the problem you are having with my image. There is no “little cursor.” Each point in time is fully actualized at that point in time, which is the way God is seeing it. Terms like “right now” apply only in the line. As I said, one can even picture history as being finished from God’s point of view. The temptation to merely put God in a sort of “super-time” where change (like the cursor) still occurs and there is a precise present must be avoided. As far as God is concerned, “now” applies equally well to AD 222 as it does to the time when I am writing this message. Makes sense now? (No pun intended.)

The idea of prophecies is that God is imparting knowledge gained from perceiving the actualized T2 to prophets at T1. He can differentiate between them just fine, but neither (or both) are “now” to him.

Finally, even if it does not matter to this argument, which I think it may (but I am not sure how), please reconsider how you define knowledge, especially Divine knowledge. Especially considering a Thomistic perspective, knowledge is immensely more than an accident of God. After all, He can have no accidents! And then there is the whole problem of human knowledge and opinion. And you don’t even want to know how much we can say about angels!! Just do not reduce knowledge to something simplistic, it is too valuable.

-Leo Carton

 

[Prodigal_Son]

If someone always acts in accordance with how they will, then they’re acting freely, right? Yet this does not require their choosing how they will, just how they act. In this way moral responsibility and divine foreordination can coincide. (What I have just described is the standard Reformed understanding of predestination and freedom.) Unfortunately, this precludes the “free will” (as opposed to a separate understanding of freedom) that is present in non-Calvinistic theologies.

This view is called compatibilism: that “acting freely” means not being coerced, being in your right mind, etc, and that “acting freely” can be predestined. But, as you acknowledge, this is not truly free will, as conventionally understood.

Consider that God is outside time, however. He doesn’t know that you “will do” x. All verb tenses are one to Him; it is all happening at once. He creates you, and all your choices are made by you (from His view) at that very moment. Why are they made by you? Because He made you a perfectly separate sovereign creature. You are king of your decisions. He doesn’t know them “in advance”. He arranges the world such that all your decisions are manifested in the world that comes to exist.

He accommodates your decisions “in advance”, if you will. This puts you as something of a co-creator of the universe (in a very, very small way), in the terminology that I’m using, but I don’t think it goes against Catholic teaching. It is very, very uncalvinistic, though.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

atman,

As I said, I’m not worried about an exhaustively correct definition of time. As long as the conditional proposition, “If God knows X, then X is true” is true, then I don’t care with respect to this specific argument how knowledge is defined.

Regarding the “God standing outside the line segment that represents time” picture: that doesn’t, in my estimation, solve the problem. There still has to be a sense in which God knows what point in time is actually occurring now – for if He could not differentiate between say, T1 and T2, then much of what the Bible says is nonsense (how could He make prophecies if all points in time were the same to Him?)

It is irrelevant whether an event is truly future to Him. If you imagine God standing outside the timeline, seeing all events as if present to Him – yet also seeing a small cursor moving across the timeline to represent what part of history is actually occurring – then He would know what events will occur after the point that the cursor is presently at. The events won’t actually be future to Him, but they will still be both (1) future to humans and (2) known by Him, in which case they cannot be performed with free will.

---

Bob Crowley,

It’s interesting that you mention how predestination and freedom can coincide. If someone always acts in accordance with how they will, then they’re acting freely, right? Yet this does not require their choosing how they will, just how they act. In this way moral responsibility and divine foreordination can coincide. (What I have just described is the standard Reformed understanding of predestination and freedom.) Unfortunately, this precludes the “free will” (as opposed to a separate understanding of freedom) that is present in non-Calvinistic theologies.

And your very interesting stories, in my opinion, would be an example of this specific outworking. I would contend that all those people acted freely (i.e. in accordance with their wills/desires – not “free will”), such that God foreordained your exact scenarios down to the last thought.

Actually there was another small sideshow to my stories. On another night I was driving in the suburb where he died. Now there’s a certain amount of frustration involved in being privy to the sort of incident I described with my father, particularly in view of a couple of his own predictions. For example, he said at one stage “You’ll meet a pastor. You’ll think he’s great, but all he’ll do is discourage you even more.” Now I was an atheist, and did not become a Christian for another 4 years. About 8 years after that, I sat in the pastor’s office and heard him say, “I owe you an apology. You needed encouragement, but all I’ve done is to discourage you even more.”

So it would seem my father’s spirit could see some events in the future even while he was “standing” there (actually he seemed to float a bit) talking to me.

Yet even the pastor himself was prophetic. For example he once said (and he died in 1992), “I think you’ll be doing a cleaning job. You won’t be doing it for long, but I think the Lord will just want you to hear about a ghost.” Sounded a bit over the top. But in 2006, I did a cleaning job for a few months (not long - didn’t like it much), but when I was being shown around an old store in Ipswich, the bloke showing me suddenly remarked “This place is haunted.” To cut a long story short a former manager had hanged himself there years before. Some strange things used to happen apparently, but when I was there I got positive vibes out ot it. I think my role was to get a mass said for the ghost.

But the pastor predicted this otherwise rather odd event at least 15 years before it happened.

To get back to my father - on another night I was driving in the suburb he lived in and may even have driven up the street where he died. Due to the frustration, I prayed for some sort of sign that the (sometimes dire) predictions of my father were real, and not a delusion or demonic. I got a sense that I ought to know better, but anyway I proceeded towards the city.

I pulled up on a rank, and in time a passenger came down, a bit the worse for wear (and drink), hopped in and said “Nundah”. I asked him whereabouts, and he said, “Just drive. I’ll tell you.” So off we went, and ended up right back in the same street where my father died, and directly across the road. My father died at number 7, this bloke went to number 6.

Coincidence? I don’t think so. Hidden - you bet. But I had free will, and so did the passenger.

I don’t know. That’s why I have trouble with the issue when my father said “I always was doomed. I didn’t really have any choice!” Yet at the same time his behavioural decisions were his.

As Christ put it, “I chose you… You didn’t choose me.”

On another night, I was driving in the suburb where he

 

[Biggie]

The question of predestination vs. free will is one for a fallen world, since in the world before the fall man’s destiny and his will were one. Through the abuse of free will, man diverged from his destiny. Was man predestined to fall? No. Were it so, God would have created man an imperfect being (one with a “shelf life”, a ticking time bomb as it were). If God were capable of such a creation, he could not be an all perfect, all good God.

In the fallen world, therefore, we are faced with man’s destiny of eternal happiness, and man’s direction toward destruction with milestones such as mishap, misadventure, infirmity along the way. Now we ask is a man predestined to his fate? No. Were it so, the Incarnation, Passion and Resurrection would have been completely unnecessary, would have, in fact, been merely farce since God could have simply exercised the predestination.

But does God foreknow? Out of ineffable humility and love for us, if he does foreknow he has chosen to forget.

 

[Confessor01]

Eucharisted,

It seems odd that you would present a brief argument, say that “there’s nothing * could possibly argue against.” (apparently because it’s a sound argument), and then say, “But I know will” – as if I’m out to get you, or as if I am some evil blood-drinking Calvinist, or something. No, on the contrary, I am replying to these arguments because I think you’re sincerely mistaken. I would hope you correct me when I make mistakes.

Anyway, your argument is basically that God knew what would happen and therefore prepared for it.

I simply have no idea how this uncoils the argument that I presented. It still stands that if God infallibly knew how Adam (or any person) would act, then he could not have done otherwise and therefore did not have “free will” to act as he did.

Also, I responded to the post that you linked later in that thread.

---

atman,

If there is no “little cursor,” then it follows that God has no idea how to comprehend time. If there is not a specific point in time that is actually occurring (i.e. if there’s not a little cursor), then there is no way for God to make prophesies, act in time, etc. It’s basically be as if there were a huge number of events that He knew would occur, but He did not know the sequence.

---

Prodigal_Son,

If God cannot differentiate between points in time (i.e. if everything is present to Him), then He is not a God who can act in time. This would make prophecy, among other things, impossible. He has to be able to understand time in some sense, even though He is outside it. Therefore, “will do” would in fact have a concise meaning to it, and He would understand it.

---

Biggie,

Wouldn’t it be correct to say that man was a ticking time bomb anyway, seeing as God knew from all eternity that man would fall? Even if you want to deny predestination, foreknowledge necessitates this.

You said, “In the fallen world, therefore, we are faced with man’s destiny of eternal happiness, and man’s direction toward destruction with milestones such as mishap, misadventure, infirmity along the way. Now we ask is a man predestined to his fate? No. Were it so, the Incarnation, Passion and Resurrection would have been completely unnecessary, would have, in fact, been merely farce since God could have simply exercised the predestination.” But God would not have been glorified as much were He to avoid all of history. And we can see from many passages of Scripture that self-glorification is His primary goal (1 Sam. 12:22; 2 Sam. 7:23; Ps. 23:3; 31:3; 1 John 2:12; Jer. 14:7; Isa. 63:12; Ezek. 20:9; etc.).

You also said, “But does God foreknow? Out of ineffable humility and love for us, if he does foreknow he has chosen to forget.” This is a fairly huge claim. Can you substantitate this?*

 

[atman]

atman,

If there is no “little cursor,” then it follows that God has no idea how to comprehend time. If there is not a specific point in time that is actually occurring (i.e. if there’s not a little cursor), then there is no way for God to make prophesies, act in time, etc. It’s basically be as if there were a huge number of events that He knew would occur, but He did not know the sequence.

I am afraid I do not see your logic. Let me take an entirely different example, seeing as the notion of a line has not helped. It is admittedly less worthy of an analogy, but it is useful in some regards, nonetheless. I have avoided using it outright before, but now, here goes. To God, history is done. The book is read, the play is finished, the symphony is complete. The sequence is retained, but no single moment is properly called “now” from His point of view. That is how God can see a huge number of events, call none the present, and retain their sequential order.

But, as I said, that is not the best analogy you can get, so I am going to take one more stab at the line. God sees a line, time, with all events in it. He sees Creation at the line’s beginning, the present date towards the end, and the Day of Judgment a little after that. On the line, we necessarily call some things past or future because of our limited point of view, just as in a line for film tickets we would call some behind and some ahead. But to somebody standing outside of that line, whom I call in front or in back (future or past) and whom I call myself (the ever-elusive present moment) have no bearing on what is seen. The queue, in its sequence, is seen entirely. There is no “actualized film-goer” distinct from the rest. In a like manner, God sees every moment of history in order, none with any special claim to “now”-ness.

That being said, of course the non-film-goer can determine and inform us of who is ahead in relation to us. This is how God can speak to Jeremiah about a New Covenant and still see it. God is not, from His point of view, telling Jeremiah about what is going to happen, but what He sees as He tells him occurring at a later date than Jeremiah’s. To Jeremiah, of course, this really is the future, because he is a temporal creature, and thus sees solely through the lens of time. For this reason, God can apply the future tense (“The time will come when I make with the House of Israel a New Covenant,” forgive me if that is not correct word for word, I am quoting from memory), just as we might say, outside the line of film-goers to one in the line, “Ahead there is a man wearing a white shirt,” when that white-shirted-man is in no way “ahead” of the speaker. I do hope this helps!!!

-Leo Carton

 

[geometer]

Well, I have had four precognitive experiences.

The first was clariaudient, which occured when I was very young maybe at ten years, and then came to pass when I was a teenager.

The second was an external vision, when I was about 30.

The third was a completely accurate dream of my own future experience.

The fourth was an internal vision of the next days three digit lottery number.

All four of these were initiated by my prayerful intentions. I did intened to have each of these experiences of future events.

The actual experiences were almost exactly the same as the premonitions. So much so, that I believe that we are predestined to do most of the things that we do. If you go though the motions of your life with no feeling then I believe all of that is predestined.

However, when I lived out what I had dreamed, the actual events played out slightly differently than in the dream. Because during the actual experience, about in the middle of it, I began to remember that I had dreamed everything that was happening. At that point one of the people hesitated. My mind raced a bit, and I guess I looked astounded, so the other person nearest me asked if there was something wrong, and I said no.

I then turned to leave the room that I was in, and felt a deep sense of dread, as if God was no longer watching me. That was the point where, what I had dreamed had ended. It really took some courage just to walk out of the room, and go on.

Well, its very late and I’m tired. I was going to say a few things about the other three experiences, in order to make the point that; we are not in this life to watch things happen, we are here to make things happen.

Pray

Vince

 

[tdgesq]

Argument: If at time T1, God knows that a person S will perform action X at a time T2, then, per the definition of knowledge, it is true at time T1 that S will do X at T2. And if it is true that S will do X at T2, then it is not the case that S can do not-X at T2. And if S cannot do not-X at T2, then he is performing an action without the ability to do otherwise; hence, he has no free will.

The major problem I see is that “the ability to do otherwise” definition of free will is incomplete. Today you will find many libertarian free will proponents who outright reject the principle of alternate possibilities.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Argument: If at time T1, God knows that a person S will perform action X at a time T2, then, per the definition of knowledge, it is true at time T1 that S will do X at T2. And if it is true that S will do X at T2, then it is not the case that S can do not-X at T2. And if S cannot do not-X at T2, then he is performing an action without the ability to do otherwise; hence, he has no free will.

Objections considered:

1. God can know what we are doing without causing us to do them.

Yes, but causality is not the scope of this argument. This is whether or not we have the ability to do otherwise.

The problem with the quote is that it use the word, “Can” instead of “Will”. The fact God can observe both T1 and T2 does not mean we had no “will” in the circumstances. What we did may be foreordained by overall observation.

However I’ve had the experience of being faced with choices and the decision was mine. With hindsight however I came to realise that with certain of these choices there were spiritual parties with a vested interest in the outcome.

If the outcome were foreordained, then there would have been no point in spiritual parties trying to bend the decision their way, whether by the use of fear, intimidation, anxiety, peace, or whatever other weapons they may have in their armoury.

I think there’s a mixture of predestination and free will involved.

 

[Biggie]

---

Biggie,

Wouldn’t it be correct to say that man was a ticking time bomb anyway, seeing as God knew from all eternity that man would fall? Even if you want to deny predestination, foreknowledge necessitates this.

You said, “In the fallen world, therefore, we are faced with man’s destiny of eternal happiness, and man’s direction toward destruction with milestones such as mishap, misadventure, infirmity along the way. Now we ask is a man predestined to his fate? No. Were it so, the Incarnation, Passion and Resurrection would have been completely unnecessary, would have, in fact, been merely farce since God could have simply exercised the predestination.” But God would not have been glorified as much were He to avoid all of history. And we can see from many passages of Scripture that self-glorification is His primary goal (1 Sam. 12:22; 2 Sam. 7:23; Ps. 23:3; 31:3; 1 John 2:12; Jer. 14:7; Isa. 63:12; Ezek. 20:9; etc.).

We can say without hesitation that God’s goal in creation is not self glorification. Neither could he have created to allow the fall of man in order to glorify himself. One need only ask “glorify to whom?” in order to get it. What need has God of glory, since he already possesses it? God is wholly and eternally self sufficient, wholly good and without blemish. Vanity and selfishness are not consistent with God’s nature.

You also said, “But does God foreknow? Out of ineffable humility and love for us, if he does foreknow he has chosen to forget.” This is a fairly huge claim. Can you substantitate this?

The substantiation is logic itself. The fact that God possess a capacity does not necessitate that God use that capacity. Creation itself is the evidence. God has the capacity for completely self sufficient existence, and yet he chose to create and thereby allow creation to impinge upon him.

God did not create an er satz world, a world of illusion where a reality exists apart from it. In such a world, all the characters would exist as in a novel, but the purpose of a novel is the entertainment of the reader. God does not seek or need entertainment.

The question of foreknowledge goes to the very function of God’s own intellect. It’s results can be described, but it’s mechanics cannot be known by us. As it is written:

“For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts.”
Is. 55:9

or again …

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.
1 COR. 3:19

 

[Drawmack]

I realize that many, many people have probably come across this argument and therefore deem it to be impotent because, well, it’s been around a while. That is generally how we humans deal with such arguments. We normally think that if some argument is common or hackneyed, and if it still hasn’t persuaded everybody of its veracity, then it can’t be correct. I am humbly asking that any readers please ignore the fact that the free will/omniscience argument has been visited many times in the past and look to this argument. It’s not anything special or distinct from older versions of the argument, but I am convinced that omniscience cannot be reconciled with free will. Consequently, I would like to see if anyone can prove the following argument to be unsound. It’s rather brief.

First, knowledge is defined as “true belief.” (I realize that there are many nuances in defining what knowledge is, and that it is most often defined as “justified true belief,” but for argument’s sake all that matters is that knowledge is true belief.)

Argument: If at time T1, God knows that a person S will perform action X at a time T2, then, per the definition of knowledge, it is true at time T1 that S will do X at T2. And if it is true that S will do X at T2, then it is not the case that S can do not-X at T2. And if S cannot do not-X at T2, then he is performing an action without the ability to do otherwise; hence, he has no free will.

Objections considered:

1. God can know what we are doing without causing us to do them.

Yes, but causality is not the scope of this argument. This is whether or not we have the ability to do otherwise.

Confessor,

I have a response to, refutation of, this argument but it rests on some precepts. Therefore, before I go into a lengthy refutation I would like to ensure you agree with the precepts. So, please just answer the following questions with a yes or no (I don’t ask this to limit you but these are the precepts and not the argument so I just want to know if you agree to my precepts there will be time for explanation later). After getting your answer I’ll take the time to write a proper refutation of your argument.

1. Do you believe that time is a dimension?
2. Do you believe that man is a four dimensional being?
3. Do you believe that time, man’s fourth dimension, constrains him?
4. Can you accept that God, if you accept his existence, is a multidimensional (i.e. more than 4) being?

Drawmack

 

[geometer]

The the physics model for the formation of dodecahedral quasicrystals requires at least six physical dimensions.

Since the formation of these quasicrystals have been observed, we have strong physical evidence that there are at least six physical dimensions.

 

[Drawmack]

The the physics model for the formation of dodecahedral quasicrystals requires at least six physical dimensions.

Since the formation of these quasicrystals have been observed, we have strong physical evidence that there are at least six physical dimensions.

I think this is in response to me. But, you’re not confessor and that isn’t a yes or a no.

 

[geometer]

I think this is in response to me. But, you’re not confessor and that isn’t a yes or a no.

Well, I believe your important question is about how we are limited by time. We are less limited than we think we are since physics seems to be at least six dimensional. But we have a lot to learn about what can be accomplished with degrees of freedom above the 4th dimension.

Based on my own experience I know that one can have visions of future events, and one can be caught up from the earth, like H’enoch experienced, and sent back, like Jesus descending into the upper room.

So reallity itself seems to have enough dimensions to host all kinds of events.

If you are trying to divide reality in its dimensionality between man and God, I can not see what basis you might work from. Although, if you could ask God a few new questions, I believe he can give you all the right answers.

 

[Drawmack]

Well, I believe your important question is about how we are limited by time. We are less limited than we think we are since physics seems to be at least six dimensional. But we have a lot to learn about what can be accomplished with degrees of freedom above the 4th dimension.

Based on my own experience I know that one can have visions of future events, and one can be caught up from the earth, like H’enoch experienced, and sent back, like Jesus descending into the upper room.

So reallity itself seems to have enough dimensions to host all kinds of events.

If you are trying to divide reality in its dimensionality between man and God, I can not see what basis you might work from. Although, if you could ask God a few new questions, I believe he can give you all the right answers.

I have not yet made any argument. I have simply asked four yes or no questions. The, yes or no, answer to these questions is important to my argument. You are assuming my argument without knowing anything of it except four basic precepts. I want the original poster to answer those questions before I refute his original argument. If you wish to answer the questions as well that is fine, but you’ve only even addressed one of them and you haven not answered that with a yes or no answer but with a convoluted explanation.

The question you are addressing was, “Do you believe that man is a four dimensional being?” I did not say only, I did not say limited by four dimensions. You are talking about crystal formation, do these crystals make up humans?