How God could have free will if he is omniscient?

[Bahman]

The tension is supposed to be between God’s free will and God’s knowledge.

Then using the Collins Dictionary, for tension
noun

• a tensing or being tensed
• mental or nervous strain, often accompanied by muscular tautness
• a state of strained relations; uneasiness due to mutual hostility
• a device for regulating tension or tautness, as of thread in a sewing machine
• voltage
• (loosely) the expansive force, or pressure, of a gas or vapor
• stress on a material produced by the pull of forces tending to cause extension
• a force or combination of forces exerting such a pull against the resistance of the material
• a balancing of forces or elements in opposition

Do any of those make sense to you?

Conflict is closer to what I meant with tension.

 

[Aloysium]

God is simple. His knowing=doing. Get over it.

 

[Bahman]

God is simple. His knowing=doing. Get over it.

So He doesn’t have any free will (because of bold part)!?

 

[YosefYosep]

So He doesn’t have any free will (because of bold part)!?

I thought we both came to the agreement that what is essential to free will is being the cause of your own actions, free of any external determinants? God does have free will. Assuming your temporal God again, when God is at point A and knows he does something at point B, he knows that at point B he was the cause of his own actions. He was free when he made that decision. There was no gun to his head, so to speak. Let’s put this in a syllogism.

1. If God is the cause of his own actions, then he has free will.
2. God is the cause of his own actions.
3. Therefore, he has free will.

Now which premise do you deny? 1 or 2?

You might object that there is a “tension” between God’s knowing of his future actions and his will to perform said actions. How though? Humans do this all the time, we plan. I plan to finish writing this post, take a sip of my water, read some poetry, go to work, come home, eat dinner, pray, and go to bed. Notice that every action I do here is completely free because I am the sole cause of these actions. Why not see God in the same light? He plans with absolute certainty. He knows all things he will do, but that doesn’t show that he doesn’t perform them freely. Just as I freely plan to sip my water in a few seconds, God can freely play to do something some time in the future, and know with certainty that it will come about, just as I know with 99% certainty that me sipping water will happen.

 

[YosefYosep]

God can freely** play** to do something

Whoops! Meant to say “plan.”

 

[Vico]

Conflict is closer to what I meant with tension.

OK, so you are saying that since God know all events, no decisions are made regarding events, so there is no exercise of free will.

That makes sense. God wills something* to be* and that is God’s free will. God is outside of time so does not change. Indeed, some have expressed that time is not real, rather there are events with ordering. That means time is subjective (psychological perception).

 

[Bahman]

OK, so you are saying that since God know all events, no decisions are made regarding events, so there is no exercise of free will.

That makes sense. God wills something* to be* and that is God’s free will. God is outside of time so does not change. Indeed, some have expressed that time is not real, rather there are events with ordering. That means time is subjective (psychological perception).

Yes, I agree.

 

[Bahman]

I thought we both came to the agreement that what is essential to free will is being the cause of your own actions, free of any internal and external determinants?

Lets accept this as definition of free will. I added the bold part.

God does have free will. Assuming your temporal God again, when God is at point A and knows he does something at point B, he knows that at point B he was the cause of his own actions. He was free when he made that decision. There was no gun to his head, so to speak.

How he can make a decision at point B when what is supposed to happen is dictated by foreknowledge? In simple word, there is an internal constraint, foreknowledge, on what God does.

Let’s put this in a syllogism.

1. If God is the cause of his own actions, then he has free will.
2. God is the cause of his own actions.
3. Therefore, he has free will.

Now which premise do you deny? 1 or 2?

I have problem with (1) (bold part) because that is the definition of will, not free will.

You might object that there is a “tension” between God’s knowing of his future actions and his will to perform said actions. How though?

Because there is a constraint, foreknowledge, on God actions always.

Humans do this all the time, we plan. I plan to finish writing this post, take a sip of my water, read some poetry, go to work, come home, eat dinner, pray, and go to bed. Notice that every action I do here is completely free because I am the sole cause of these actions. Why not see God in the same light? He plans with absolute certainty. He knows all things he will do, but that doesn’t show that he doesn’t perform them freely. Just as I freely plan to sip my water in a few seconds, God can freely play to do something some time in the future, and know with certainty that it will come about, just as I know with 99% certainty that me sipping water will happen.

We have no foreknowledge.

 

[YosefYosep]

Lets accept this as definition of free will. I added the bold part.

How he can make a decision at point B when what is supposed to happen is dictated by foreknowledge? In simple word, there is an internal constraint, foreknowledge, on what God does.

I have problem with (1) (bold part) because that is the definition of will, not free will.

Because there is a constraint, foreknowledge, on God actions always.

We have no foreknowledge.

I don’t see any good reason to accept your modified definition of free will. You haven’t defined what an internal determinant is, but I think I know what you mean. If I do accept this definition, then I would have to conclude that most of our actions aren’t freely willed. You say God’s knowledge determines his actions, and that said knowledge is an internal determinant. But every person’s knowledge determines their actions. Nearly every action is determined by some pull, desire, or knowledge we possess.

I visit the doctor because I know it will be good for me, I drink water because I know I need to stay hydrated. Yet, you wouldn’t think such actions aren’t freely made? But on your definition my internal determinants determined my actions, so such actions weren’t freely made! But, as we both agree, free actions are those that are caused by yourself alone. Internal determinants, then, are just another facet of yourself.

I think your addition of “internal determinants” is an attempt to sidestep my syllogism for God having free will. Because if it can be shown that God is the cause of his own actions, then it doesn’t matter whether or not he knows which actions he will perform, because ultimately he is the sole cause of them.

My knowledge that I will finish writing this sentence does not rob me of my free will to write this sentence. I was the cause of that sentence, even though I intended to write it and knew I would finish writing it. It was still a free act. Now God does the same thing. He intends to make all of his decisions that will ever be made, and he foresees himself making these decisions. But it is ultimately him that makes these decisions.

 

[PseuTonym]

The question is how he could choose a number freely?

God’s favorite whole number from zero to one hundred isn’t something that God freely chose, but is something that God knows because God is all-knowing, and God had no choice?

Bahman, what is your favorite whole number from zero to one hundred? Could you be mistaken? Could you believe that your favorite whole number from zero to one hundred is 91, and later receive a private message from me proving that your favorite number from zero to one hundred isn’t 91, and that it wasn’t 91 when you thought it was 91?

 

[Bahman]

I don’t see any good reason to accept your modified definition of free will. You haven’t defined what an internal determinant is, but I think I know what you mean. If I do accept this definition, then I would have to conclude that most of our actions aren’t freely willed. You say God’s knowledge determines his actions, and that said knowledge is an internal determinant. But every person’s knowledge determines their actions. Nearly every action is determined by some pull, desire, or knowledge we possess.

I visit the doctor because I know it will be good for me, I drink water because I know I need to stay hydrated. Yet, you wouldn’t think such actions aren’t freely made? But on your definition my internal determinants determined my actions, so such actions weren’t freely made! But, as we both agree, free actions are those that are caused by yourself alone. Internal determinants, then, are just another facet of yourself.

I think your addition of “internal determinants” is an attempt to sidestep my syllogism for God having free will. Because if it can be shown that God is the cause of his own actions, then it doesn’t matter whether or not he knows which actions he will perform, because ultimately he is the sole cause of them.

My knowledge that I will finish writing this sentence does not rob me of my free will to write this sentence. I was the cause of that sentence, even though I intended to write it and knew I would finish writing it. It was still a free act. Now God does the same thing. He intends to make all of his decisions that will ever be made, and he foresees himself making these decisions. But it is ultimately him that makes these decisions.

We can go with either definition. My definition in fact set God free more. Lets stick to your definition. How God’s foreknowledge could be correct if he does something which is against his foreknowledge?

 

[Bahman]

God’s favorite whole number from zero to one hundred isn’t something that God freely chose, but is something that God knows because God is all-knowing, and God had no choice?

Bahman, what is your favorite whole number from zero to one hundred? Could you be mistaken? Could you believe that your favorite whole number from zero to one hundred is 91, and later receive a private message from me proving that your favorite number from zero to one hundred isn’t 91, and that it wasn’t 91 when you thought it was 91?

I don’t think that we choose freely when we report our favorite number. The idea is we are not aware of our decision when we decide in a situation until decision is made. Knowing our decision in advance has a conflict with we decide. So we have to give up free will or foreknowledge in the case of God.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . we are not aware of our decision when we decide in a situation until decision is made. Knowing our decision in advance has a conflict with we decide. So we have to give up free will or foreknowledge in the case of God.

Let’s see if this helps. As you say, we are aware of our decision when we decide it. We are aware of what we do, whether it is thinking or a physical action when we do it. Everything we do, action and awareness is done in the present. We cannot leave the present moment; we remember and plan in the now. There is nothing but the moment since everything that has been done, is being done and will be done, occurs in its moment. God is the Cause of all moments. He brings them into existence. As you are aware of what you are thinking and doing as parts of the whole which is you, God is aware of all creation. The past is dead for us because of our free will which creates our eternal selves within the time that we are here. Once done it is done forever. It cannot be undone, only praised or forgiven. For God there is no death. All creation unfolds within the ocean of His infinite compassion, eternal. His foreknowledge in the moment that He is with us in time, stems from His being here and there, in what for us is our future and for Him, part of the eternal present.

 

[PseuTonym]

God however is omniscient which means that he knows the actions he has to perform in future.

Are you assuming that every action that God performs is an action that, prior to performance, God had to perform?

What if there are actually two kinds of actions?
#1 Those actions that God has to perform, and
#2 Those actions that are optional for God.

For example, suppose that God wishes to disclose a single train of thought that you can use to determine how many whole numbers there are from zero to one hundred.

I see at least two different trains of thought:
#1 Refer to zero as item number 101, refer to one as item one, refer to two as item two, etc.
#2 Refer to zero as item number 1, refer to one as item number two, etc, and with that uniform transformation recognize that the output is an unbroken sequence from one to …

It is not necessary to reveal a conclusion. It is possible to reveal a method, and allow people to apply the method for themselves. It looks as though, if God is to reveal one method, then God has at least two options. A third option is to reveal both methods.

In my example, it’s difficult to see what difference it makes what option is selected. However, for more complicated problems, such choices can make a difference. There can be controversy about what conclusion is obtained if the method is applied correctly. There can be controversy about whether or not the method itself is a route to the information that we seek.

As an example of whether or not the method is a route to the information we seek, I recall reading that some ancient Chinese mathematicians believed that pi is equal to the square root of ten. So, they may have been correctly computing fractions that are upper bounds for root ten, and correctly computing fractions that are lower bounds for root ten, but when the interval narrowed enough, the value of pi might not have been in that computed interval.

Here is a problem for you: disclose to me a train of thought that I can use to confirm that 3 is less than pi. If that is too difficult, then describe a train of thought that I can use to confirm that 2.8 is less than pi.

 

[YosefYosep]

We can go with either definition. My definition in fact set God free more. Lets stick to your definition. How God’s foreknowledge could be correct if he does something which is against his foreknowledge?

We can’t go with either definition because they’re not the same, they can’t both be true. You should explain why your definition makes God more free. You should also address my argument against your definition. Also your question seems a bit odd. I think you’re basically asking, “How could God’s foreknowledge be correct if it’s incorrect?” Well if God’s foreknowledge was incorrect then it wouldn’t be foreknowledge–it would be some limited form of knowledge. Foreknowledge is the ability to foresee the future, but if God foresaw incorrectly, then he wouldn’t be omniscient. I don’t see, however, how this hypothetical has anything to do with whether or not God has free will.

 

[Aloysium]

There would be no distinction between God’s omniscience and His omnipotence.
There exists nothing but God and His creation.
What He does, including bringing into existence beings who participate in their creation, is known to Him because He knows what He does.

 

[PseuTonym]

Well if God’s foreknowledge was incorrect then it wouldn’t be foreknowledge–it would be some limited form of knowledge. Foreknowledge is the ability to foresee the future, but if God foresaw incorrectly, then he wouldn’t be omniscient. I don’t see, however, how this hypothetical has anything to do with whether or not God has free will.

It seems strange, doesn’t it? However, a limited form of knowledge might be the ingredient that we need to fill in the gaps. Before God chooses a favorite whole number from zero to one hundred (perhaps because God made a lot of difficult choices recently and doesn’t wish to make any more) … God consults a dictionary, an encyclopaedia, searches on Google and Duckduckgo, applies a bit of deductive logic … and suddenly discovers that 87 is God’s favorite.

God checks over his work. No errors! So, God doesn’t get to make a choice. Research, reasoning, calculation, etc. has shown by purely cognitive means – without any need to make a decision – that God’s favorite number is 87. Perhaps it is a disappointment because God was hoping that he could not merely understand Bahman, but actually know Bahman from the inside by having the experience of being Bahman. However, if Bahman’s favorite is 91 and God’s favorite is 87, then God isn’t Bahman.

 

[YosefYosep]

It seems strange, doesn’t it? However, a limited form of knowledge might be the ingredient that we need to fill in the gaps. Before God chooses a favorite whole number from zero to one hundred (perhaps because God made a lot of difficult choices recently and doesn’t wish to make any more) … God consults a dictionary, an encyclopaedia, searches on Google and Duckduckgo, applies a bit of deductive logic … and suddenly discovers that 87 is God’s favorite.

God checks over his work. No errors! So, God doesn’t get to make a choice. Research, reasoning, calculation, etc. has shown by purely cognitive means – without any need to make a decision – that God’s favorite number is 87. Perhaps it is a disappointment because God was hoping that he could not merely understand Bahman, but actually know Bahman from the inside by having the experience of being Bahman. However, if Bahman’s favorite is 91 and God’s favorite is 87, then God isn’t Bahman.

Are you suggesting that God may have a limited knowledge but has the potential to know everything about something?

 

[Aloysium]

Are you suggesting that God may have a limited knowledge but has the potential to know everything about something?

I thought the post was sort of tongue in cheek. Perhaps disrespectful, but God must have a sense of humour since He did create PseuTonym. Actually, God’s favourite number is three. This is not only because it describes who He is as the Triune Godhead, but because everything is built as three: husband-wife-love, positive-negative-balancedsystem, earth-moon-gravity, knower-known-knowing, and so forth. Did God know He had a favourite number before this discussion? Such matter come up because we juggle ideas. What is a favourite number anyway? Perhaps mine is 5. Not sure why, Maybe because I have five fingers on each hand. So, my number and how I want things to be does not always coincide with reality, who God is and what He has created. I am not God; I don’t get to say what this is all about. In the end, God’s knowledge is love.

 

[Bahman]

Let’s see if this helps. As you say, we are aware of our decision when we decide it. We are aware of what we do, whether it is thinking or a physical action when we do it. Everything we do, action and awareness is done in the present. We cannot leave the present moment; we remember and plan in the now. There is nothing but the moment since everything that has been done, is being done and will be done, occurs in its moment. God is the Cause of all moments. He brings them into existence. As you are aware of what you are thinking and doing as parts of the whole which is you, God is aware of all creation. The past is dead for us because of our free will which creates our eternal selves within the time that we are here. Once done it is done forever. It cannot be undone, only praised or forgiven. For God there is no death. All creation unfolds within the ocean of His infinite compassion, eternal. His foreknowledge in the moment that He is with us in time, stems from His being here and there, in what for us is our future and for Him, part of the eternal present.

What is the meaning of option for God if he knows what He has to do? How he could have foreknowledge if he is free to do opposite of His foreknowledge?