How God could have free will if he is omniscient?

[Bahman]

This is very simple to understand: Free will is ability to freely choose one option in a situation, which is defined with at least two options. God however is omniscient which means that he knows the actions he has to perform in future. This leaves no room for free will.

 

[LethalMouse]

This is very simple to understand: Free will is ability to freely choose one option in a situation, which is defined with at least two options. God however is omniscient which means that he knows the actions he has to perform in future. This leaves no room for free will.

In a time travel movie, if you travel to the future and see what happens and go back. What happens later is not for e or destiny. That future is still the result if free choices…rather than predestined.

 

[po18guy]

What sort of god are you speaking of? The Eternal God does not have free will such as He has graced mankind with. He has only the Divine will, which is immutable and perfect. We cannot and do not begin to know God by reducing Him to human nature or attributes.

 

[GodsGrace154]

This is very simple to understand: Free will is ability to freely choose one option in a situation, which is defined with at least two options. God however is omniscient which means that he knows the actions he has to perform in future. This leaves no room for free will.

Bahman
I put this forth for your consideration:

GOD IS THE ONLY BEING WITH FREE WILL SINCE HE IS SOVEREIGN.

Think about it.
I believe man has free will - I’m not arguing that, BUT
God could change man’s will…
God could change satan’s will…

Only God truly has free will since neither man nor satan can change God’s will.

GG

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Bahman, your “logic” isn’t logic!

 

[Bahman]

In a time travel movie, if you travel to the future and see what happens and go back. What happens later is not for e or destiny. That future is still the result if free choices…rather than predestined.

Future is fixed in the divine view.

 

[Bahman]

What sort of god are you speaking of? The Eternal God does not have free will such as He has graced mankind with. He has only the Divine will, which is immutable and perfect. We cannot and do not begin to know God by reducing Him to human nature or attributes.

I am talking about a God who has free will and is omniscient.

 

[Bahman]

Bahman
I put this forth for your consideration:

GOD IS THE ONLY BEING WITH FREE WILL SINCE HE IS SOVEREIGN.

Think about it.
I believe man has free will - I’m not arguing that, BUT
God could change man’s will…
God could change satan’s will…

Only God truly has free will since neither man nor satan can change God’s will.

GG

God cannot have free will according to my argument. What is wrong in your opinion in my argument?

 

[Bahman]

Bahman, your “logic” isn’t logic!

Why? What is wrong with my argument?

 

[adamhovey1988]

Bahman, your “logic” isn’t logic!

I think the same thing every time I see these types of posts.

 

[Bahman]

I think the same thing every time I see these types of posts.

What is wrong with my argument? Do you lack any understanding of what I am talking about?

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Because there is nothing actually in the knowledge of all things beyond what we used to think of as “time”, that deprives a being of a full range of choices, any number of which he can bring to fruition.

 

[Wesrock]

To God, He doesn’t have actions He has yet to perform. Omniscience in Thomism doesn’t mean knowing the future, anyway. (Though in some classical theism schools it does)

But we’ve discussed God’s timelessness and what it means to be eternal in other threads. It never clicked for you.

 

[Trident_H]

This is very simple to understand: Free will is ability to freely choose one option in a situation, which is defined with at least two options. God however is omniscient which means that he knows the actions he has to perform in future. This leaves no room for free will.

If I know for a fact that 2 + 2 = 4 that doesn’t stop me from writing the wrong answer on a test. I could still do it. But it wouldn’t make a lot of sense. So I’d freely choose the right answer.

Just because God is logical doesn’t mean he’s a slave of his own foresight.

 

[GodsGrace154]

God cannot have free will according to my argument. What is wrong in your opinion in my argument?

I’ve already explained to you why I think your reasoning is flawed.
God can CHOOSE what He will.
HE causes the rain to fall on the righteous and on the unrighteous.
Mathew 5:45
Is it not God who is choosing if the sun shall rise or if the rain shall fall?
Is this not a choice between two options??

HE causes all things to work together for the good to those that love Him.
Romans 8:28

Did God not choose that the Israelites should be freed?
He even hardened Pharoeh’s heart so this could come about:
Exodus 9:12

And did He not choose Mary to be the Mother of God?
Luke 1:31

Do you deny that God is able to do what He willeth?
Do you deny that He has options?
Do you deny that He is sovereign?

Please rethink. Please use scripture. Please show me where it says that God does not have a free will.

GG

 

[FractalFire]

This is very simple to understand: Free will is ability to freely choose one option in a situation, which is defined with at least two options. God however is omniscient which means that he knows the actions he has to perform in future. This leaves no room for free will.

You could probably do yourself much good by listening to William Lane Craig’s Defender’s podcast and watch the segment on the attributes of God, in particular, omniscience. He addresses this issue and many others and should satiate your curiosity for the time being. His website also has other resources if you’re interested or have further questions.

Suffice it to say, foreknowledge does not entail that the being that foreknew the event *forced *that event to happen. If, for example, Dr. Who went forward in time and observed a future war, it is immensely and immediately obvious that he did not himself cause the war – even though the war *will *happen absolutely, he did not himself did not force the event to happen.

To expand the analogy, imagine that Dr. Who went forward in time and observed that he had pushed the red button instead of the blue button on a monitor. Now, his knowing what he will do does not actually *force *him to do something – it just so happens that this is what he freely chooses to do. Had he freely chosen the blue button, he would have seen that he had pushed the blue button. Either way, the choice was freely made.

From Craig

This argument for theological fatalism is fallacious. Before I explain why, I would like to make a general observation. This argument has got to be fallacious because fatalism posits a constraint upon human freedom which is completely unintelligible. God’s knowledge is not thought to be the cause of what will happen in the future. The claim is not that God’s knowing about something causes that something to happen. The event itself may be entirely uncaused – it could be a free event or it could be some quantum event that is completely causally indeterminate. The fatalist is not saying that God’s foreknowledge of some event is the cause of the event. But in that case, if the event is causally indeterminate, then how can God’s knowing about it in advance constrain it in any way?

Imagine that X is some uncaused event in the future. We are to think, apparently, according to the fatalist, that if God knows about it in advance, then somehow X, even though it is causally undetermined, is going necessarily to occur. It is constrained to occur. But now suppose God doesn’t know about X. Let’s imagine God does not have foreknowledge about X. What has changed? X is still the same uncaused event, God doesn’t know about it, and now all of a sudden the constraint is supposed to have vanished. It happens contingently. It doesn’t happen necessarily. But whether God knows about it or not is just causally irrelevant to whether X occurs. What is this mysterious constraint called “fate” that God’s knowledge puts upon the event? I can’t see that there is any sort of constraint. The argument itself has to be fallacious because fatalism posits a constraint upon events which is completely unintelligible, being non-causal in nature.

Read more: reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s3-14#ixzz4615LIgto

So your argument, I think, makes several fatal errors, namely in its understanding of foreknowledge and causality.

If you want to see more, visit the Craig’s site and read the entire transcript of this podcast (the podcasts after it discuss the topic as well if you have more questions).

 

[GodsGrace154]

You could probably do yourself much good by listening to William Lane Craig’s Defender’s podcast and watch the segment on the attributes of God, in particular, omniscience. He addresses this issue and many others and should satiate your curiosity for the time being. His website also has other resources if you’re interested or have further questions.

Suffice it to say, foreknowledge does not entail that the being that foreknew the event *forced *that event to happen. If, for example, Dr. Who went forward in time and observed a future war, it is immensely and immediately obvious that he did not himself cause the war – even though the war *will *happen absolutely, he did not himself did not force the event to happen.

To expand the analogy, imagine that Dr. Who went forward in time and observed that he had pushed the red button instead of the blue button on a monitor. Now, his knowing what he will do does not actually *force *him to do something – it just so happens that this is what he freely chooses to do. Had he freely chosen the blue button, he would have seen that he had pushed the blue button. Either way, the choice was freely made.

From Craig

Read more: reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s3-14#ixzz4615LIgto

So your argument, I think, makes several fatal errors, namely in its understanding of foreknowledge and causality.

If you want to see more, visit the Craig’s site and read the entire transcript of this podcast (the podcasts after it discuss the topic as well if you have more questions).

Is the O.P. discussing foreknowledge??

It seems to me he’s saying that God has no free will.
BECAUSE God is omniscient.

I don’t think he’s saying that God’s foreknowledge is the causation - and all you say is absolutely correct.

I think he’s saying that because God is all-knowing, He does not have free will.

Which makes absolutely no sense.

Because along the “time line” God can, at any moment, CHANGE the time line. This would be what is called a miracle - an interruption in the time line and what was supposed to have been. But, then, God would have known that even the interruption would occur!

God is the ONLY “being” with free will, as I stated earlier.
This is not to say that man does not have free will - no posts please.

OR, I’ve misunderstood everything!

GG

 

[thecolorsblend]

This is very simple to understand: Free will is ability to freely choose one option in a situation, which is defined with at least two options. God however is omniscient which means that he knows the actions he has to perform in future. This leaves no room for free will.

I’m not sure how. I know that if I poke my hand with a knife, I’ll bleed. Knowing the consequence doesn’t remove my free will to poke my hand with a knife or to not do it.

 

[GodsGrace154]

This is very simple to understand: Free will is ability to freely choose one option in a situation, which is defined with at least two options. God however is omniscient which means that he knows the actions he has to perform in future. This leaves no room for free will.

Let’s see if you understand this:

Are you saying that because God knows the future He has no free-will?

That’s nonsense.

WHO do you think made up the future from a myriad of choices???
And of HIS OWN FREE WILL.

GG

 

[Bahman]

Because there is nothing actually in the knowledge of all things beyond what we used to think of as “time”, that deprives a being of a full range of choices, any number of which he can bring to fruition.

I don’t understand how this is related to our discussion.