The Free Will Problem

[ateista]

God knows the future because it does exist for him-- right now, as we speak.

This needs a separate answer. If you imply that the future does not exist for us, but it exists for God, then you violate the law of contradiction here. Something cannot both exist and not exist at the same time in the same context - just because there are two observers one of which has a broader perspective.

The one with narrower perspective (us) may not be aware of this existence, while the other one (God) is aware of it, but our lack of perspective does not invalidate the actual existence.

 

[angelusm]

I recently found myself in a discusson with two agnostic friends who seem to think that if God knows everything we will do then our actions are pre-determined. We argued for hours really, but I couldn’t seem to convince them.

Essentially, my main point was that knowledge is separate from causation and the knowledge of something is contingent on the truth (or reality) of a given thing.

Basically, knowledge, by itself, has never caused or determined anything in history, nor will it.

I am not philosophically trained. Would anyone mind helping me understand why God’s omniscience does not pre-determine our actions, or that his knowing of what we will do does not indicate that there is “fate”.

Thanks.

What your friends were saying wasn’t quite logical. Before creating them God knew they wouldn’t believe in him. So, according to what they said, God forced them not to believe in him, to put them in hell as a result. That’s a pure nonsense. They didn’t mean God who is love. They meant their (false) image of God.

 

[gdibella]

If something does not exist, it is not knowable, if something does exist, it is knowable. That is all I am talking about. (quote)
I think we are in agreement here, but the point I am making is that knowledge of future events can exist for God but not for us.

There is no contradiction. **God, not subject to time, knows the future. It is not a matter of awareness. **
God is perfect and as such has knowledge of future events.
What the traditional view of God’s omniscience says is simple:

1. We don’t know the future.
2. God does.
3. The future exists for God because he is not subject to time and hence resolves the contradictions.

Something cannot both exist and not exist at the same time in the same context - just because there are two observers one of which has a broader perspective. (quote)

The situation is not at all analogous to two observers from disparate vantage points.

The two contexts are as different as is possible. God exists and functions in an entirely different context, namely, outside of the bounds of time.

 

[Sarpedon]

This needs a separate answer. If you imply that the future does not exist for us, but it exists for God, then you violate the law of contradiction here. Something cannot both exist and not exist at the same time in the same context - just because there are two observers one of which has a broader perspective.

(my emphasis)

God is not in the same time as us. In fact, He is not in time at all. Thus, “at the same time” is meaningless.

 

[Sarpedon]

Sorry, but that is not satisfactory. The essence (if there is such a thing in a meaningful manner) should allow us to differentiate between two similar but not identical instances of “pebbles” or hydrogen atoms, or neutrinos… and your definition does not allow that.

Hydrogen atoms can exist in different isotopes while remaining hydrogen atoms. We can still call them hydrogen atoms despite not being identical. Does this answer your charge? (I may be misunderstanding it)

The point is that “essence” is not a meaningful term, and it still presupposes existence (which is a meaningful term).

Perhaps existence at some point is necessary for essence.

If that is the case, then we should be silent about God in every respect. It is not meaningful to say that “God exists” or “God is love”, either. You can’t have your cake and eat it, too. Either we can speak of God in a meaningful manner, or we cannot. You cannot say that we can speak of God when it is convenient and decline the conversation when it is not.

This “cop-out” happens all the time. I bring up a problem, examine it in depth, and all of a sudden the believers declare that it is a “mystery”, it belongs to the realm of “faith”, and it cannot be examined in a purely rational fashion. Sorry, but I don’t accept it. Are there some things that can be discussed about God in a purely rational, meaningful fashion? And if the answer is “yes”, then what are they?

I think you misunderstood my answer. I outlined why I believe logic corresponds with God.

 

[Sarpedon]

I suppose you could say that the essence of a pebble is a small aggregation of certain types (or type) of molecules (that form geologic structures) in the solid state. The same for a grain of sand, although it is smaller and sometimes composed of a single molecule. The essence of a neutrino would be a parallel case. I’m not sure with thought, but depending on how you define it I would guess that it is the functioning of the mind (for me, it is not only physical).

Allow me to clarify. Essence is probably best thought of as what something is, regardless of whether it exists or not. For example, I can form in my mind an idea of “dogness” without thinking of a specific breed of dog. Dogs have many different physcial traits, but I can still know what a “dog” is.

 

[ateista]

Allow me to clarify. Essence is probably best thought of as what something is, regardless of whether it exists or not. For example, I can form in my mind an idea of “dogness” without thinking of a specific breed of dog. Dogs have many different physcial traits, but I can still know what a “dog” is.

You speak of the **concept **of a dog, or a **hypothetical **dog or an **imaginary **dog or a generalized dog… all of which a mental constructs or concepts … none of these should be confused with an **actual **dog. (Interesting fact that autistic people do not have these generalizations. When you tell the word “dog” to them they will conjure up the memory of every dog they have ever seen.)

You cannot know anything about your neighbor’s dog if he does not have one. Can you?

 

[ateista]

(my emphasis)

God is not in the same time as us. In fact, He is not in time at all. Thus, “at the same time” is meaningless.

No, it is not. The phrase “same time” refers to the object, not the observer. No matter where and when the observer is (or if there is no observer at all), the object’s existence (or nonexistence) does not change. It either exists, or it does not.

I agree that not all the observers can be aware of this existence, but the lack of knowledge on the observer’s part does not influence the existence of the object. Suppose you have an actual dog, which I do not know about. My lack of knowledge cannot make your dog “disappear”, can it? And conversely, if I mistakenly think that you have a dog, this belief will not make a dog appear in your house.

Summary: the existence of an object is independent of the obersevers, or the lack of observers. Existence is not dependent on the observer’s capabilities.

 

[ateista]

I think we are in agreement here, but the point I am making is that knowledge of future events can exist for God but not for us.

Ok, I accept this. The knowability of the future can be impossible to us, but the existence cannot be dependent on our limited capabilities.

No matter what kind of magical methods God uses, no matter where and when (or nowhere and nowhen) God exists, knowledge of anything, past, present and future presupposes the actual existence of the object or event that is to be known.

Do you agree with this?

 

[Sarpedon]

You speak of the **concept **of a dog, or a **hypothetical **dog or an **imaginary **dog or a generalized dog… all of which a mental constructs or concepts … none of these should be confused with an **actual **dog. (Interesting fact that autistic people do not have these generalizations. When you tell the word “dog” to them they will conjure up the memory of every dog they have ever seen.)

The concept is a mental image of the essence. Of course it is not the actual dog, because it is not necessarily in actuality. If essence is real, then it is independant of anyone’s ability to know it (the minds of autistic people may not percieve essence correctly).

You cannot know anything about your neighbor’s dog if he does not have one. Can you?

Of course not. But I can know some things about what the dog would be if he had one.

 

[Sarpedon]

No, it is not. The phrase “same time” refers to the object, not the observer. No matter where and when the observer is (or if there is no observer at all), the object’s existence (or nonexistence) does not change. It either exists, or it does not.

What you said was:

“Something cannot both exist and not exist at the same time in the same context”

This is absolutely true within time, as you state. You directly state that existence and nonexistence cannot be simultaneous within time. This does not address being outside of time. Do you want to change your wording, or stick with it?

Summary: the existence of an object is independent of the obersevers, or the lack of observers. Existence is not dependent on the observer’s capabilities.

God is not only an “observer”, He is also the being that existence is contingent on. Therefore, existence is not independant of God (although it is not part of God, like pantheism). God can know things that are dependant upon Him for existence.

 

[gdibella]

Allow me to illustrate where I agree and disagree. The future does exist for God in that God comprehends the future in the eternal present.

If our capabilities were that of God we would know the future.

But the future’s existence is not dependent on our knowledge of it, so this much is true.

But if our capabilities were God’s, we would be able to operate and function in the future.

What Sarpedon said is key to understanding Christian doctrine:
**God is not only an “observer”, He is also the being that existence is contingent upon. **
Thus, the “problem” you have set up is dependent upon two fallacious statements:

1. The characterization of God as an observer and 2) The wrong application of the word contradiction to the fact that God knows the future and we don’t.

Also, we do have free will despite not knowing the future. God knows not only every path we can choose, but which one we do choose.

I think we’re beating a dead horse here. The resolution is clear once you understand the attributes of God.

TO all readers: Rather than this back and forth, **Aquinas takes care of the issue. Read with understanding and the “problem” is resolved. **

ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP.ii.FP_Q14.FP_Q14_A9.html (Existence vs. knowledge resolved by Aquinas.)

ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP.ii.FP_Q14.FP_Q14_A13.html (Future vs. free will)

ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP.ii.FP_Q22.FP_Q22_A4.html (Providence does not equal necessity.)

 

[gdibella]

By the way, I don’t mean to halt debate, but I think working off a clear exposition can only aid discussion.

For example, if one disagrees, tell me what in Aquinas you find erroneous.

But otherwise, I do earnestly intend to show that study of the links above does resolve the question.

 

[OTavern]

“Knowing” is to have information about something. It is not the human way of “knowing”. It is the only way of knowing.

Our “knowing” of things outside of us is mediated by the senses and organized by the logical structure of our minds. To say that is the only way of knowing is a leap of presumption. Perhaps other minds, with other “logical” structures have the capacity to know “essences” of things more fully. Perhaps other sentient beings with other senses can be provided with more, different or better information through different “mediums.” Perhaps it is even possible to know essences completely “unmediated” by senses – have pure knowledge of the essence of other entities.

How do you know that is not possible?

Was logic created by God, or is logic something that limits God as well?

Our logic is created by God, but our logic may not be a complete intellectual structure perhaps only a fragment of what may be possible through “unmediated” means.

Perhaps the senses are precisely the control God uses to provide knowledge to us on an “as needs to know” basis.

 

[Nepenthe]

Long thread, but I don’t know if anyone (maybe me or Mirdath) has discusssed the ‘Free Won’t’ concept. EVERY time you make a choice, your mind tosses up a ‘spreadsheet’ with some prioritized towards the top (Immediate gain, but potential consequences) and so on, but there’s a whole spectrum to choose from…

[Edited by Moderator]

If you think there is a Supreme Being, this Free Won’t concept is an even greater gift maybe…it certainly is whether you do or do not, in my opinion. (and yes, I am a materialist much in the same sense as ateista). I’m pretty sure that that tree continues to be, whether or not God hangs out in the Quad, because I can go check it myself (we can get into observational theory later sometimes, I hope.)

 

[Sarpedon]

Excellent post, Gdibella.

I think we can discard the essence discussion. I was trying to demonstrate that since we can know things that no longer exist (and how future things “would” exist), it wouldn’t be that unreasonable to think that God could do the same for the future. However, God seeing all existence in the eternal present (thus, everything exists in the same present) is probably the correct way to look at it.

Before, I said that God could know the future because He could know the essence before it was actualized. However, this isn’t correct because God is not in time (I’m not sure how I managed to get confused on that- )

 

[gdibella]

Okay. Sounds good. I think everyone has understood that the “problem” of free will is no problem when you understand that God functions outside of time.

For the idea of God holding something in existence, I propose that the OP set up a separate thread.
Thanks,
Greg

 

[ateista]

This thread is going nowhere… as expected. So I am going to give a summary and let it go.

1. The assumption that the future exists (like the present exists) is nonsensical. The future only exists as a concept, as the result of freely made, but as of yet unresolved decisions. It does not exist as an entity. Therefore it is inherently unknowable, just like the nonexistent winner of the lottery on a week when there was no winner. Omniscience does not mean knowing the nonexistence. This is obvious.
2. However, believers cannot accept this. They say that for God, the future already exists. They disregard the fact that existence is not relative, something either exists, or does not - unlike the knowability a something, which is indeed contingent upon the entity involved. (Something can be known for one entity and unknown for another.)
3. So let’s examine the ramifications of this assumption. Suppose the believers are right, and the future indeed exists, parallel to the present - for God. In this case there are no unresolved decisions. What we think is an unresolved decision is just a mistake on our part, since the decision has already been resolved. Therefore the concept of a freely made decision is just an illusion imposed on us by our limited view on reality.
4. This is another clear case of contradiction. A decision is either freely made or not. If the result of an alleged decision already exists, then the decision could not possibly have been anything else - therefore it is not “free” in any sense of the word.

Of course that does not bother the believers. Anyone who is willing and able to disregard the blatant contradiction that an entity is either one or three - but not both - can deny the validity of any contradiction.

What did the Church Lady say? “How conveeeeenient!!”

 

[OTavern]

Of course that does not bother the believers. Anyone who is willing and able to disregard the blatant contradiction that an entity is either one or three - but not both - can deny the validity of any contradiction.

What did the Church Lady say? “How conveeeeenient!!”

I’ll answer on the assumption that you are referring to the Trinity here.

For many years scientists debated whether light comprised of “waves” or “particles.” In your words, does light have to be “either one or the other but not both?” A blatant contraction you say? No just the limitations of our knowledge where contradictory things seem to both hold true.

Let me try to provide a parallel explanation for Trinity that might make some sense.

Any self-conscious person has at least two aspects: the real being of self and a concept or “awareness” of self.

Suppose an “all-knowing” Being has “self-consciousness,” wouldn’t that entail that there would be at least two aspects to this Being? The Being Itself and, because the Being is all-knowing, an identical “replica” of the Being that would proceed from the Being’s self-knowledge?

So, to counter your suggestion that there is a blatant contradiction in the idea of “Trinity,” it would seem that self-consciousness requires a minimum of two “instances” of the same being, and an all-knowing consciousness would have two indistinguishable, fully realized “instances.”

I suspect that because God is more than intellectual self-knowledge, somewhere in the “nature” of God is the necessity of a third instance, but this is not clear, possibly in the relationship between God and His proceeding “self-knowledge” (Logos).

 

[Sarpedon]

1. So let’s examine the ramifications of this assumption. Suppose the believers are right, and the future indeed exists, parallel to the present - for God. In this case there are no unresolved decisions. What we think is an unresolved decision is just a mistake on our part, since the decision has already been resolved. Therefore the concept of a freely made decision is just an illusion imposed on us by our limited view on reality.

You are confusing the perspectives of God and man. For God, human decisions are indeed resolved and there is no way they can change. He knows everything anyone will ever do, and where they will end up. I will go to heaven or hell, and God knows exactly which it will be.

However, this does not mean that man’s decisions are not free. God may know whether I will go to heaven or hell, but this is knowledge of what Iwill/B be unchangeable (due to freely made choices), in the same way that our past is unchangeable (because freely made choices have already been made). God can see what this unchangeable future is, because He views everything in totality.

We can know the past without having caused it to happen. Likewise, God knows our future without necessarily causing it to happen.

I know you want to let the thread go, so I am not expecting a reply.