The Problem of Foreknowledge

[idav]

So, how would such variables arise?

Only by being outside/independent of the system.

 

[idav]

Let me see if I can restate the question to make it more clear.

On one hand, we have philosophers who have proposed the problem of God's foreknowledge vs. Man's free will, which goes something like this:

Knowledge is true, which is to say that a proposition has to be true to qualify as knowledge. If I propose, "You will finish this book tomorrow," and if it's true, I have expressed knowledge of the future. Similarly, the omniscient God allegedly has knowledge of all events that will be, and as knowledge is true, it's all true, so the sequence of events cannot happen any other way. In believing this image of omniscience about God, a theist boxes themselves into an unfree world where, even if he for example wanted with all his heart to do the right thing, he cannot but choose to do wrong if it's true that he will choose to do wrong.
​

On the other hand, we have philosophers who hoped to poke a hole in this picture by proposing that propositions worded about the future have no truth value. Only propositions about things that are certain have truth value; and as knowledge is true, omniscience need only be about the true propositions. As there is no truth about the future available, either to us or to God, "foreknowledge" amounts to nothing more than prediction.

So the question is, what do you think about this counter-argument?

With omniscience foreknowledge is just prediction because all is known. No need to be psychic or outside of time for that to be the case. Some can just predict better than others but it takes knowledge.

 

[Willamena]

As we (me at least) have no knowledge about truth of foreknowledge, to make any comment about foreknowledge will amount to making nothing but prediction?

The arguments are more about the nature of the two things, knowledge and prediction. Knowledge has inherent truth, prediction (however inductive it may be) has inherent uncertainty. Actuality is where the inherent truth resides. What is actual can be known, the future cannot. Statements about the future are prediction.

We can superimpose "god" on a possible time-'line' and see every moment of it, everywhen, as "now" or "actual", and conclude foreknowledge. That is an image that slaves everything to time*. The alternative picture slaves everything to actuality. Time would take on a new image: I imagine it like a plane or surface (now) stretching out, below which all previously actualized events (the past) shift and move, and above which (the future) is nothing that has been actualized yet.

Needless to say, I find the counter-argument appealing.


*Even "god".

 

[Kilgore Trout]

But only one of those conditions distinguishes knowledge from belief.

Knowing is knowing.

 

[Nakosis]

(a.k.a. Beating a Dead Horse)

The problem of God's foreknowledge vs. Man's free will was dealt with by past philosophers by specifying the distinction between knowledge and prediction in regards to truth, and holding that foreknowledge, even God's, is prediction.


Do you agree with this assessment? Why or why not?

Freewill is doing what you want to do. It doesn't matter if someone, something knows beforehand that you are going to do something. As long you did an act because it is what you wanted to do.

If you had enough data you could predict what an individual is going to do in given circumstances. That doesn't mean they weren't free to act according to their desires. It only means, knowing their desires, their actions were predictable.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Freewill is doing what you want to do. It doesn't matter if someone, something knows beforehand that you are going to do something. As long you did an act because it is what you wanted to do.

Yes .. exactly!

If you had enough data you could predict what an individual is going to do in given circumstances. That doesn't mean they weren't free to act according to their desires. It only means, knowing their desires, their actions were predictable.

I would expand on the above, and suggest that God knows about "every spinning electron" and what will happen to it .. after all, He created the universe (space-time) ..
He is the OWNER of time (as we physically perceive / define it)
. . .

It's all relative :bright:

 

[Me Myself]

Freewill is doing what you want to do. It doesn't matter if someone, something knows beforehand that you are going to do something. As long you did an act because it is what you wanted to do.

If you had enough data you could predict what an individual is going to do in given circumstances. That doesn't mean they weren't free to act according to their desires. It only means, knowing their desires, their actions were predictable.

The problem with what you say is that it ceases to be a real free will. It is only a relative free will, and thus, not entirely free:

You are not free from the patterns you WILL follow no matter what.

You could say there is a relative free will, but it is still relative. Ultimately, everything that comes from your "free will" is actually God´s choice, because he created you with your specific desires and inclinations to do anything you do.

 

[Willamena]

Freewill is doing what you want to do. It doesn't matter if someone, something knows beforehand that you are going to do something. As long you did an act because it is what you wanted to do.

If you had enough data you could predict what an individual is going to do in given circumstances. That doesn't mean they weren't free to act according to their desires. It only means, knowing their desires, their actions were predictable.

But if your desires dictate what you're going to do, is it really a "free" act?

 

[Nakosis]

The problem with what you say is that it ceases to be a real free will. It is only a relative free will, and thus, not entirely free:

You are not free from the patterns you WILL follow no matter what.

You could say there is a relative free will, but it is still relative. Ultimately, everything that comes from your "free will" is actually God´s choice, because he created you with your specific desires and inclinations to do anything you do.

That's the concept of libertarian freewill (LFW). It's generally accepted that LFW is improbable, that's regardless of whether a omniscient being exists or not. That's like action without cause. Or acting without reason. Something an insane individual might do but even then the insanity would be the cause of their action.

There are a few that still hold onto an idea of LFW however it'd seem to be necessary to prove the un-caused cause. Might as well try to prove God.

Freewill is generally acting on your desires. If someone holds a gun against your head and causes you to act against your will that's generally seen as an action that was not done from freewill.

LFW is a concept that has no practical existence and maybe impossible to prove even if it does exist.

 

[Nakosis]

But if your desires dictate what you're going to do, is it really a "free" act?

Would you ever act against your desires? Even if forced to do something it's a desire for self preservation.

While humans are very complex, there's no reason to think we act arbitrarily to the universe. Something in or past or current circumstances cause the desire we feel which we act upon. Later in hind sight we may consider other actions we could have taken. So there maybe a perception of having had a choice. However there is no reason to think in the same situation with the same prior circumstances/knowledge you would have acted any different then you did.

Choice maybe an illusion of imagination. Of course in the future because of what you imagined, you may choose otherwise but then that choice will also have been determine by the past and you will choose accordingly.

 

[Nakosis]

Well, to be fair capital "G" God almost always knows everything I believe, be of the religious tradition it may be. There should be exceptions I would assume, but I would assume there would be little of them.

Doesn't matter if God is involved or not. Generally we see everything as having a cause. Science predicts what will happen in a chemical reaction because of how we know chemicals will react to each other. A scientist given enough knowledge about an individual should be able to accurately predict their actions. Does the knowledge of that scientist in any way coerce the individual? Accepting that the two had no interaction, no communication what so ever.

Science depends on a determine universe. Without it science could not make predictions. Whether any being has foreknowledge of "what will happen next" is irrelevant.

 

[Nakosis]

Read it how you want I guess. I saw this: "The problem of divine foreknowledge insinuates that theism precludes morality." I still say that it is generalization and it is faulty. It needs to be specific if it is meant to be specific and if it isn't...it is flat out wrong.

As to the last point, I believe supposedly the main crutch point, KT is right.

It's a general moral problem even without God. A determined universe presupposes an individual can't take take any other action then what is predetermined by the past which directly cause their actions.

In other words an individual who kills their spouse in a fit of rage could not have done otherwise, being the person they were, their past and the circumstances they were in. So they didn't have a choice really except to act as they did.

So do we punish an individual who could not have acted in any manner other then what they did? They are a victim of circumstances as much as the person they killed.

Do you blame the individual for who they are, which really they had very little if any control over?

I didn't decide who I was going to be born to, how they were going to treat me, what education I'd have, the people I'd meet, who would influence my thinking etc... I am a result of everything that came before which could not have been anything other then it was.

The big problem for religion is if we didn't have choice to choose good or evil because we are a victim of our own past, how can God hold us accountable for what we do, do?

 

[Skwim]

Do they need to arise?

How else would they come to exist?

 

[Skwim]

Only by being outside/independent of the system.

But these variables that exist outside the system, what ever that is, have an effect within the system. Exactly how does that work?

 

[idav]

But these variables that exist outside the system, what ever that is, have an effect within the system. Exactly how does that work?

Like an programmer is to autonomous software (elements within the system might even think they have free will).

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I agree with god knowing every possible proposition but this would also entail knowing which propositions would be taken. In this way god has the ability to influence which course will be taken.

To what end though.and for what purpose?

 

[Willamena]

Would you ever act against your desires? Even if forced to do something it's a desire for self preservation.

While humans are very complex, there's no reason to think we act arbitrarily to the universe. Something in or past or current circumstances cause the desire we feel which we act upon. Later in hind sight we may consider other actions we could have taken. So there maybe a perception of having had a choice. However there is no reason to think in the same situation with the same prior circumstances/knowledge you would have acted any different then you did.

Choice maybe an illusion of imagination. Of course in the future because of what you imagined, you may choose otherwise but then that choice will also have been determine by the past and you will choose accordingly.

Well thought out answers, thank you. The compatibilist theories always paint interesting pictures.

 

[Skwim]

Like an programmer is to autonomous software (elements within the system might even think they have free will).

No. Not an analogy. I'm looking for an explanation of how a variable existing outside the system, which I'm taking as our reality, can impact our reality. And just what kind of reality is this, which is not our own, in which the variable exists?

 

[idav]

To what end though.and for what purpose?

I'm not to sure the objective but hopefully not a cold death for the universe.

 

[idav]

No. Not an analogy. I'm looking for an explanation of how a variable existing outside the system, which I'm taking as our reality, can impact our reality. And just what kind of reality is this, which is not our own, in which the variable exists?

It is at the quantum level that matter does not act within the rules of reality as we know it which is why we are still trying to find the unified theory that can add some logic to the way things act at that level. I consider these separate systems that have interaction with each other. Whether it can be controlled by an entity is a question I'm not sure about. A god could be independent of our reality while still being subject to his own like the programmer analogy.