Two argument against foreknowledge

[Bahman]

We can accept that foreknowledge is equivalent to that one future exist. One future is however incompatible with free will once the agent is aware of foreknowledge which is easy argument.

I however don’t understand how foreknowledge can be acquired without knowing what is free will and how could we be free if free will is knowable which is hard argument. In simple word God needs to know what free will is in order to create an agent with free will however he cannot know what free will is since otherwise free will is knowable thing meaning one can know decision of a person in advance hence the agent’s action is reduced to simple functioning hence s/he could no be free.

 

[Gorgias]

We can accept that foreknowledge is equivalent to that one future exist. One future is however incompatible with free will once the agent is aware of foreknowledge which is easy argument.

If by this, you mean to say that an individual agent cannot have foreknowledge of his own future choice, I can live with that. It would be paradoxical otherwise.

I however don’t understand how foreknowledge can be acquired without knowing what is free will and how could we be free if free will is knowable which is hard argument. In simple word God needs to know what free will is in order to create an agent with free will however he cannot know what free will is since otherwise free will is knowable thing meaning one can know decision of a person in advance hence the agent’s action is reduced to simple functioning hence s/he could no be free.

You seem to be conflating ‘the definition of free will’ with ‘an instance of a free will decision made by an agent,’ if I’m understanding what you’ve written here.

I’m not entirely certain what you mean by “God needs to know what free will is”; are you asserting that God knows future events (chosen by free will), or that God needs to know the definition of free will?

Many would disagree with you that foreknowledge implies lack of free will. The fact that God, outside of the constraints of time and able to view things within time, can know things that are ‘before’ or ‘after’ other events when viewed in the context of time, doesn’t present a logical problem. It’s not much different than looking at a train track. If you’re on the track, you know what you’ve already passed, but not what hasn’t come across your field of view on the track ahead. That knowledge will come to you in time. However, if your context is different (let’s say, hovering 5 miles above the trace), you see both what’s ‘behind’ the person on the track and what’s ‘ahead’. To the view of the person on the track, such knowledge is impossible; to the view of the person hovering above the track, that knowledge is reasonable.

 

[RedFox0456]

No. God can know all that will happen while still giving us free will. Currently, science states that time did not exist before the creation of our universe. And since God exists outside the bounds of our universe, God exists outside of time. This could allow all of time to be known without the requirement of manipulating every detail. So God could certainly have foreknowledge (or in His case, knowledge) of events and still allow us free will.

 

[seagal]

This is a debate that has engrossed theologians and philosophers for hundreds of years. Take a look at this video by Dr. William Craig in which he discusses several possible interpretations.

In simple word God needs to know what free will is in order to create an agent with free will however he cannot know what free will is since otherwise free will is knowable thing meaning one can know decision of a person in advance

You seem to be still confusing free will as some kind of “entity” (to use your word). “Free will” is not synonymous with “decision”. It is the faculty by which you are able to make a decision.

hence the agent’s action is reduced to simple functioning hence s/he could no be free.

Simply knowing what a person will do is not the same as causing it to happen.

PS Did you give up on your previous thread?

 

[anixx]

We can accept that foreknowledge is equivalent to that one future exist. One future is however incompatible with free will once the agent is aware of foreknowledge which is easy argument.

I however don’t understand how foreknowledge can be acquired without knowing what is free will and how could we be free if free will is knowable which is hard argument. In simple word God needs to know what free will is in order to create an agent with free will however he cannot know what free will is since otherwise free will is knowable thing meaning one can know decision of a person in advance hence the agent’s action is reduced to simple functioning hence s/he could no be free.

Foreknowledge is knowing the outcome of a situation before it happens. You could exemplify it by the following: If i release this penny, it will fall to the ground. 100% of the times, unless a miracle happens. This is foreknowledge. Now, the object in cause has no free-will. It is subjected to extrinsic causes, like gravity. When considering the actions of humans, you have many factors, not just gravity. The agent of free-will comes in. But even there you can have foreknowledge. I know he will wake up at 5 am. Why? Because he wakes up to go to work. He has the free-will not to wake up and not to go to work. There is nothing construing his free-will, but himself. He is free to construe his free-will, and thus making a choice. And this happens through the intellect. Intellect guides free-will. We think, consider and make a choice. You can argue that, the circumstances influence him. And that is most certainly true. But he knows that if he does as he pleases, and chooses not to wake up, he might loose his job. So you have foreknowledge of an event of a person before he/she does it, and it doesn’t violate the free-will hypothesis.
Take this thread, for example. I looked at it, and decided, because of free-will, that I will try to answer your dilemma. You had foreknowledge that someone will answer it, though you didn’t knew who.
As for God. God sees all implications and all possible outcomes, that ever were, are and will be. We have free-will, but he, in his infinite and eternal wisdom, sees all. He is always present. He is present now, and he IS present 1000 years ago, and he IS present 1000 years from now. You cannot refer to God as he WAS or WILL BE, he IS. I’m not yelling, just emphasizing. It is a mystery how this two go together, God’s foreknowledge and our free-will, but we know them to be true.
For example: In the garden of Ghetsemani, Jesus had the foreknowledge of all those that will be damned, because of what he was about to do. That’s why he sweat blood and fought with his human nature, finally giving all to the will of the Father. It must have been a terrible moment for Christ, knowing all who would reject him.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

We can accept that foreknowledge is equivalent to that one future exist. One future is however incompatible with free will once the agent is aware of foreknowledge which is easy argument.

I however don’t understand how foreknowledge can be acquired without knowing what is free will and how could we be free if free will is knowable which is hard argument. In simple word God needs to know what free will is in order to create an agent with free will however he cannot know what free will is since otherwise free will is knowable thing meaning one can know decision of a person in advance hence the agent’s action is reduced to simple functioning hence s/he could no be free.

Free Will: newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm

Linus2nd

 

[belorg]

Foreknowledge is knowing the outcome of a situation before it happens. You could exemplify it by the following: If i release this penny, it will fall to the ground. 100% of the times, unless a miracle happens. This is foreknowledge. Now, the object in cause has no free-will. It is subjected to extrinsic causes, like gravity. When considering the actions of humans, you have many factors, not just gravity. The agent of free-will comes in. But even there you can have foreknowledge. I know he will wake up at 5 am. Why? Because he wakes up to go to work. He has the free-will not to wake up and not to go to work. There is nothing construing his free-will, but himself. He is free to construe his free-will, and thus making a choice. And this happens through the intellect. Intellect guides free-will. We think, consider and make a choice. You can argue that, the circumstances influence him. And that is most certainly true. But he knows that if he does as he pleases, and chooses not to wake up, he might loose his job. So you have foreknowledge of an event of a person before he/she does it, and it doesn’t violate the free-will hypothesis.
Take this thread, for example. I looked at it, and decided, because of free-will, that I will try to answer your dilemma. You had foreknowledge that someone will answer it, though you didn’t knew who.
As for God. God sees all implications and all possible outcomes, that ever were, are and will be. We have free-will, but he, in his infinite and eternal wisdom, sees all. He is always present. He is present now, and he IS present 1000 years ago, and he IS present 1000 years from now. You cannot refer to God as he WAS or WILL BE, he IS. I’m not yelling, just emphasizing. It is a mystery how this two go together, God’s foreknowledge and our free-will, but we know them to be true.
For example: In the garden of Ghetsemani, Jesus had the foreknowledge of all those that will be damned, because of what he was about to do. That’s why he sweat blood and fought with his human nature, finally giving all to the will of the Father. It must have been a terrible moment for Christ, knowing all who would reject him.

But, if it is true for God that, 1000 years from now, X will happen, then it is not true that Y will happen. And that is the case for every single action that occurs, has occurred or will occurred. In other words, if this view of God as always present is correct, then every single act is determined. The only kind of free will that is possible in that case is *compatibilist *free will. Libertarian free will , however, is not possible

 

[anixx]

But, if it is true for God that, 1000 years from now, X will happen, then it is not true that Y will happen. And that is the case for every single action that occurs, has occurred or will occurred. In other words, if this view of God as always present is correct, then every single act is determined. The only kind of free will that is possible in that case is *compatibilist *free will. Libertarian free will , however, is not possible

He does not determine them, he only knows them, as in much the particular act is made by a being with free-will, angel or human. When we profess our faith, we say according to the Scriptures. The death and resurrection of Christ is described in great detail in the OT. So there is foreknowledge of God.
God is always present, because he never changes, to him there is no yesterday, nor tomorrow. He is perfect, and in perfection nothing can be added, nor subtracted. There is no change in God. He cannot know something today, and something else tomorrow. He either knows it, or he doesn’t, and this is in eternity. You cannot teach God something new, to put it in human terms. New information means change. God does not change, so he must know all that was, is and ever will be, all at the same time, and always.

 

[belorg]

He does not determine them, he only knows them, as in much the particular act is made by a being with free-will, angel or human. When we profess our faith, we say according to the Scriptures. The death and resurrection of Christ is described in great detail in the OT. So there is foreknowledge of God.
God is always present, because he never changes, to him there is no yesterday, nor tomorrow. He is perfect, and in perfection nothing can be added, nor subtracted. There is no change in God. He cannot know something today, and something else tomorrow. He either knows it, or he doesn’t, and this is in eternity. You cannot teach God something new, to put it in human terms. New information means change. God does not change, so he must know all that was, is and ever will be, all at the same time, and always.

I have never said He determines them. But the very fact that He cannot know something today and another thing tomorrow means there is only one trujth to know, which means everything is determined. What exactly is responsible for this is not the point here.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I have never said He determines them. But the very fact that He cannot know something today and another thing tomorrow means there is only one trujth to know, which means everything is determined. What exactly is responsible for this is not the point here.

You seem confused. Knowing does not mean determined. God knows all our free decisions and has taken them into account in " writing " and executing his plan for worldly and eternal order. He knows our free decisions as having been completed, not as something which we will do. He knows everything in his eternal Now. So his knowledge has no effect on our free decisions.

Your statement here, " But, if it is true for God that, 1000 years from now, X will happen, then it is not true that Y will happen. And that is the case for every single action that occurs, has occurred or will occurred. In other words, if this view of God as always present is correct, then every single act is determined. The only kind of free will that is possible in that case is compatibilist free will. Libertarian free will , however, is not possible " is rather confusing.

Catholics would say what I have said in the previous paragraph. I will not agree that this view belongs in any theoretical camp, it belongs in the camp of Faith as taught by the Catholic Church or as in accord with her teaching on human freedom.

Linus2nd

 

[Sparkythedog]

I have never said He determines them. But the very fact that He cannot know something today and another thing tomorrow means there is only one trujth to know, which means everything is determined. What exactly is responsible for this is not the point here.

I think another way of asking this question would be “Can God know and/or tell me what I will do in the future? And if he can, can I do something different than what he tells me?”

If the answer to the first question is no, then regardless of the answer to the second question God is not omniscient.

If the answer to the first question is yes and the answer to the second question is also yes, then God is not omniscient.

If the answer to the first question is yes and the answer to the second question is no, then I have no free will.

There is no way, that I can see, to answer this scenario where both God is omniscient and I have free will.

 

[empther]

I think another way of asking this question would be “Can God know and/or tell me what I will do in the future? And if he can, can I do something different than what he tells me?”

This falls in the category of the proverbial, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” question.

There is no instance in Scripture of a human being told by God ahead of time that in the future he would make some specific decision on a certain day in certain fully defined circumstances.
God did reveal some prophecies about the future through the prophets and Scripture writers,
but these left enough ambiguity about the specifics I just outlined to still leave people with decisions to make when the time came.

Therefore,
the situation in the question in the quote has never been realized, most likely never will be realized, and therefore is useless.

 

[RedFox0456]

I think another way of asking this question would be “Can God know and/or tell me what I will do in the future? And if he can, can I do something different than what he tells me?”

If the answer to the first question is no, then regardless of the answer to the second question God is not omniscient.

If the answer to the first question is yes and the answer to the second question is also yes, then God is not omniscient.

If the answer to the first question is yes and the answer to the second question is no, then I have no free will.

There is no way, that I can see, to answer this scenario where both God is omniscient and I have free will.

Pretty sure Jesus told Peter he was going to deny Him three times. Pretty sure Peter still did it. Pretty sure Peter wasn’t forced into his actions by anyone but himself.

 

[Sparkythedog]

Pretty sure Jesus told Peter he was going to deny Him three times. Pretty sure Peter still did it. Pretty sure Peter wasn’t forced into his actions by anyone but himself.

How do you know Peter could have chosen differently. The story is at least consistent with a lack of free will, is it not? What makes you “pretty sure”.

 

[oldcelt]

**This falls in the category of the proverbial, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” ** question.

There is no instance in Scripture of a human being told by God ahead of time that in the future he would make some specific decision on a certain day in certain fully defined circumstances.
God did reveal some prophecies about the future through the prophets and Scripture writers,
but these left enough ambiguity about the specifics I just outlined to still leave people with decisions to make when the time came.

Therefore,
the situation in the question in the quote has never been realized, most likely never will be realized, and therefore is useless.

It most certainly does not. Please, just answer the question. For your last statement…how do you know?

 

[belorg]

You seem confused. Knowing does not mean determined. God knows all our free decisions and has taken them into account in " writing " and executing his plan for worldly and eternal order. He knows our free decisions as having been completed, not as something which we will do. He knows everything in his eternal Now. So his knowledge has no effect on our free decisions.

Your statement here, " But, if it is true for God that, 1000 years from now, X will happen, then it is not true that Y will happen. And that is the case for every single action that occurs, has occurred or will occurred. In other words, if this view of God as always present is correct, then every single act is determined. The only kind of free will that is possible in that case is compatibilist free will. Libertarian free will , however, is not possible " is rather confusing.

Catholics would say what I have said in the previous paragraph. I will not agree that this view belongs in any theoretical camp, it belongs in the camp of Faith as taught by the Catholic Church or as in accord with her teaching on human freedom.

Linus2nd

I know you believe this by faith and I have no problem with that, but this is the philosophy forum and unless you come up with philosophical arguments for your position, there is nothing to discuss.

 

[Bahman]

If by this, you mean to say that an individual agent cannot have foreknowledge of his own future choice, I can live with that. It would be paradoxical otherwise.

What I meant in simple word is that knowing foreknowledge has an affect decision of an agent hence future and foreknowledge are not fixed which is paradoxical.

You seem to be conflating ‘the definition of free will’ with ‘an instance of a free will decision made by an agent,’ if I’m understanding what you’ve written here.

I’m not entirely certain what you mean by “God needs to know what free will is”; are you asserting that God knows future events (chosen by free will), or that God needs to know the definition of free will?

God needs to know what free will is by this I mean that minimally given circumstances in a situation he should know what is the outcome of a decision and maximally as a creator needs to know how free will works. Free will in both case is reduced to functioning meaning that we act like a machine since the outcome is uniquely is defined given the (name removed by moderator)uts. The main question is whether there exist a complex function, in simple word definability, which can uniquely define the decision of agent in a given situation. If yes then free will is an illusion and if not then how God could create something which is not definable.

 

[Bahman]

No. God can know all that will happen while still giving us free will. Currently, science states that time did not exist before the creation of our universe. And since God exists outside the bounds of our universe, God exists outside of time. This could allow all of time to be known without the requirement of manipulating every detail. So God could certainly have foreknowledge (or in His case, knowledge) of events and still allow us free will.

My point was not whether free will is compatible with foreknowledge which is. My question was whether a person can do otherwise when s/he is informed of foreknowledge, through prophecy for example. If no, free will is an illusion and if yes then we are dealing with a paradoxical situation.

 

[Bahman]

This is a debate that has engrossed theologians and philosophers for hundreds of years. Take a look at this video by Dr. William Craig in which he discusses several possible interpretations.

thank you for the link.

You seem to be still confusing free will as some kind of “entity” (to use your word). “Free will” is not synonymous with “decision”. It is the faculty by which you are able to make a decision.

Free will is a faculty and I know that. My question is whether there exist a function which can gives the output of a decision given the circumstances as an (name removed by moderator)ut which is required for definability. If not how God could create something which is not definable.

Simply knowing what a person will do is not the same as causing it to happen.

That I am aware of.

PS Did you give up on your previous thread?

Yes since the thread went of topic.

 

[Bahman]

Foreknowledge is knowing the outcome of a situation before it happens. You could exemplify it by the following: If i release this penny, it will fall to the ground. 100% of the times, unless a miracle happens. This is foreknowledge. Now, the object in cause has no free-will. It is subjected to extrinsic causes, like gravity. When considering the actions of humans, you have many factors, not just gravity. The agent of free-will comes in. But even there you can have foreknowledge. I know he will wake up at 5 am. Why? Because he wakes up to go to work. He has the free-will not to wake up and not to go to work. There is nothing construing his free-will, but himself. He is free to construe his free-will, and thus making a choice. And this happens through the intellect. Intellect guides free-will. We think, consider and make a choice. You can argue that, the circumstances influence him. And that is most certainly true. But he knows that if he does as he pleases, and chooses not to wake up, he might loose his job. So you have foreknowledge of an event of a person before he/she does it, and it doesn’t violate the free-will hypothesis.
Take this thread, for example. I looked at it, and decided, because of free-will, that I will try to answer your dilemma. You had foreknowledge that someone will answer it, though you didn’t knew who.
As for God. God sees all implications and all possible outcomes, that ever were, are and will be. We have free-will, but he, in his infinite and eternal wisdom, sees all. He is always present. He is present now, and he IS present 1000 years ago, and he IS present 1000 years from now. You cannot refer to God as he WAS or WILL BE, he IS. I’m not yelling, just emphasizing. It is a mystery how this two go together, God’s foreknowledge and our free-will, but we know them to be true.
For example: In the garden of Ghetsemani, Jesus had the foreknowledge of all those that will be damned, because of what he was about to do. That’s why he sweat blood and fought with his human nature, finally giving all to the will of the Father. It must have been a terrible moment for Christ, knowing all who would reject him.

You didn’t get neither of arguments. God beings outside of time he can see what we will do since all time is present to him. My first argument was about the conflict between foreknowledge and free will given that an agent is aware of foreknowledge. And my second argument was about if there exist a function which can define the outcome of an agent with free will in any given circumstances which is required for definability.