How God could have free will if he is omniscient?

[Bahman]

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.

There is only one future hence God cannot have option.

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.

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

 

[Bahman]

We can’t go with either definition because they’re not the same, they can’t both be true.

My definition is only less determinant than yours so my argument works with my definition if it works with yours.

You should explain why your definition makes God more free.

Because there is less constraint on God if there is no internal determinant.

You should also address my argument against your definition.

Which post?

Also your question seems a bit odd. I think you’re basically asking, “How could God’s foreknowledge be correct if it’s incorrect?”

No. My question is: How God’s foreknowledge could be correct if he does something which is against his foreknowledge knowing the fact that he has free will?

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.

Lets put it in another word: God needs options when he want to decide in a situation. How God could have option when knows what he is going to do?

 

[Aloysium]

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?

It is “foreknowledge” for us in time.
God is one, simple - He knows what He is doing, inside each thing, overarching and outside what He has created in every and all time.
I am running out of ways to say the same thing over and over.

 

[PseuTonym]

There is only one future hence God cannot have option.

When a substance is proposed as a pharmaceutical to treat an illness, how do we know that the so-called “randomization” process for determining who gets the substance and who gets a placebo isn’t simply correctly forecasting the one future?

What is your concept of causality? You manipulate a light switch and a lamp becomes luminescent, shining light upon you without flames, because it’s safe and requires no burning of wax or wick or kerosene in a candle or old-style oil lamp.

What would have happened if you had not manipulated the light switch? Why didn’t you simply wait? Surely you thought that if you merely waited, then the light would not go on.

 

[YosefYosep]

Lets put it in another word: God needs** options** when he want to decide in a situation. How God could have options when knows what he is going to do?

I think this is the root of our disagreements. We keep on coming back to this. I say that what is essential to free will is the ability to be the cause of your own actions. You seem to think that one must have options, a choice between A or B. But the decision to pick A or B assumes that you are the cause of your an actions and can freely choose either. We’re having a very good discussion–and I’m enjoying it a lot–but I don’t think we can make any progress unless we come to an agreement on what free will actually is.

 

[PseuTonym]

There is only one future hence God cannot have option.

What determines the future?

 

[Bahman]

It is “foreknowledge” for us in time.
God is one, simple - He knows what He is doing, inside each thing, overarching and outside what He has created in every and all time.
I am running out of ways to say the same thing over and over.

I am sorry but I don’t understand how your answers are related to my questions.

 

[Bahman]

When a substance is proposed as a pharmaceutical to treat an illness, how do we know that the so-called “randomization” process for determining who gets the substance and who gets a placebo isn’t simply correctly forecasting the one future?

What is your concept of causality? You manipulate a light switch and a lamp becomes luminescent, shining light upon you without flames, because it’s safe and requires no burning of wax or wick or kerosene in a candle or old-style oil lamp.

What would have happened if you had not manipulated the light switch? Why didn’t you simply wait? Surely you thought that if you merely waited, then the light would not go on.

I don’t understand how your comment is related to mine. Could you please elaborate?

 

[Bahman]

I think this is the root of our disagreements. We keep on coming back to this. I say that what is essential to free will is the ability to be the cause of your own actions. You seem to think that one must have options, a choice between A or B. But the decision to pick A or B assumes that you are the cause of your an actions and can freely choose either. We’re having a very good discussion–and I’m enjoying it a lot–but I don’t think we can make any progress unless we come to an agreement on what free will actually is.

What you define as “free will” is in fact “will”.

 

[Bahman]

What determines the future?

We determine the unique future with our decisions.

 

[PseuTonym]

We determine the unique future with our decisions.

Let us suppose that you wait half an hour for your light to go on. At that moment, you decide that you don’t want to wait any longer. However, before you move your hand to manipulate the switch, the lamp turns on, apparently spontaneously.

Could you please list some alternative explanations that you consider to be appropriate for a philosophical discussion?

In the meantime, I now begin to do what I requested from you …

1. Somebody you know and trust is secretly planning to become a stage magician, and is using you to test out his or her first great trick.
2. Beings who have technology beyond our comprehension live among us and can manipulate our environment from somewhere on or near the Earth.
3. A miracle occurred.
4. You have a genetic mutation that allows your mind to directly manipulate switches that don’t require much force to manipulate.
   5 If it happened enough times to you, with enough witnesses, and with enough investigation of the equipment, then I would imagine that you could be canonized as the official patron saint of enphotonment, where we assume that the theoretical construct “photon” can be substituted for the word “light.”