The Problem of Foreknowledge

[Nakosis]

Because God is able to view past present and future simultaneously, he knows beforehand how his work tuns out, and since he cannot be wrong, there is no free will. You have essentially listed all the properties of predestination here. God doesn't 'allow' anything because he was responsible for all conditions and thus, all outcomes; and he is aware, at the beginning, what they all are at the end, infallibly.

Essentially your entire set of paragraphs renders void your own sentence of " In terms of freewill, God allows man to choose his future." Given everything else you say, that sentence makes no sense.

I'm just saying such a being would have the potential to alter the past present and future at will. Not that they necessarily do.

So God could alter at any moment the past present and future to where is was as if man never existed. Or say altered the past to where Jesus didn't die on the cross. That could include altering our memories so to us if would be as if the past had always been so. We wouldn't know any difference.

So for whatever reason, God created a reality, gave man, an independence of thought, action and withholds from it his will. So while he could change anything according to his will he doesn't. So while knowing what will happen. It's already all happened as far as this being would be concerned. God allows it, from our perspective to run it's course. Basically not controlling man as a robot or puppet.

Like when writing a story the author dictates entirely the actions of the characters in the story. Whereas here God creates the circumstances of the story but gives the characters freewill to act independent of the author's will/desire for them to act. Being omniscient/omnipresent God knows the outcome but didn't dictate it.

 

[idav]

How about the future will be as God declares it to be until/unless God changes his mind.

Sure but this would limit gods all knowing capabilities. As I said something has to give, either omniscience or omnipotence needs to be lesser in order to be compatible.

 

[Nakosis]

This would not effect "God's" foreknowledge though. If this particular god "changes his mind" then surely he knew he would change his mind before he changed it.

There'd be no future as far as God was concerned. More a timeless chaos that can be manipulated according to God's will.

Kind of like the question, "Can God create a rock that is too heavy for him to lift." The answer is yes but only as long as he will a rock with such properties to exist.

Man exists and thinks/acts independent of God's will only as God allows it. If God were to change his mind then this universe would return to the timeless chaos from which it came. Having had as much existence/reality as one of your dreams at night.

You can look at our reality as God's dream. Any part of that dream can be altered by the dreamer without restriction but from the perspective within the dream things are as they are.

Then this, to me, rules out the existence of "God". "IF" I were to accept anything from the bible then your description of "God" above rules out his existence. How can a "God" transcend space and time but require his creation to do A, B and C and if it doesn't it would be subject to punishment X, Y and Z? The requirements from "God" as laid out in the bible are futile. Surely this god would have known before he created space and time that I, his supposed creation, would not follow any of it.......and if he already knows this then surely I will not be punished for not following his book....

A case can be made that he knows it and will still punish me for not following his book and if that is the case then there is no such thing as free will or sin. To me it doesn't make sense that a transcendent god would exist that is omnipotent/omniscient.....


:sad:

This only has to do with the conceptualization of an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscience being. I didn't see in the OP any requirements to fit it to any particular religious belief.

However at the same time such a being could create such a pointless reality if they wanted to.

If you had a dream and in that dream you tortured someone mercilessly. Would you feel bad for torturing this being of your imagination. A being you could create/un-create/recreate at will?

One moment you could be torturing them, them next place them in paradise living as if the torture never happened. Our uncreate them as if they never existed.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Oh really? Guess what .. what's meaningless to 'heathens', is not meaningless TO GOD

How can you say that 'our time dimension' is meaning less to God? That's absurd .. He created space-time. He created everything

People who don't know what the term 'Heathen' means, have nothing to say about what we think

I say 'it's meaningless' to him in the context of your objection. It's meaningless in that it does not affect his ability to know all we do, at any point in our timelines, since YOU think he is 'outside time' and able to view any or all points of it at a glance. Goodness pay attention to what we are discussing.

The fact he 'created everything' works directly against your point.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I'm just saying such a being would have the potential to alter the past present and future at will. Not that they necessarily do.

Well, that's fine, but it only strengthens to problem for a denial of God's knowledge overruling free will.

So God could alter at any moment the past present and future to where is was as if man never existed. Or say altered the past to where Jesus didn't die on the cross. That could include altering our memories so to us if would be as if the past had always been so. We wouldn't know any difference.

Um, yes. Thanks?

So for whatever reason, God created a reality, gave man, an independence of thought, action and withholds from it his will. So while he could change anything according to his will he doesn't. So while knowing what will happen. It's already all happened as far as this being would be concerned. God allows it, from our perspective to run it's course. Basically not controlling man as a robot or puppet.

Except you JUST PROVED HE DIDN'T GIVE MAN INDEPENDENCE OF THOUGHT. Because it happens, and changes, at his whim, without our knowledge or resistance.

Like when writing a story the author dictates entirely the actions of the characters in the story. Whereas here God creates the circumstances of the story but gives the characters freewill to act independent of the author's will/desire for them to act. Being omniscient/omnipresent God knows the outcome but didn't dictate it.

You have proved that he does not, and is exactly like an author. The characters ONLY do what he wishes, and cannot do anything but.

That is the opposite, of free will.

 

[Nakosis]

Sure but this would limit gods all knowing capabilities. As I said something has to give, either omniscience or omnipotence needs to be lesser in order to be compatible.

Not in regards to our reality.
Within a dream you are omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent though you may not experience the dream as such. The potential remains.

Who within the dream can say the actual reality of the dreamer. Perhaps their is no reality outside the dream. If God were to wake up, he and everything else would cease to be.

 

[muhammad_isa]

In that case, if god knows that you will stab and kill your next door neighbour next week, because his dog soiled your front yard and that you will go to hell as a result of that decision, then you will. Because you cannot change god's knowledge. So all of the praying and good works you have done in the past and future are meaningless, because god has already seen you in hell.

That's right.. if you're going to hell, you're going to hell ..

But we don't know where we will 'end up' .. and so giving up trying to go to heaven would only make sure of you not getting there

 

[Nakosis]

Well, that's fine, but it only strengthens to problem for a denial of God's knowledge overruling free will.


Um, yes. Thanks?


Except you JUST PROVED HE DIDN'T GIVE MAN INDEPENDENCE OF THOUGHT. Because it happens, and changes, at his whim, without our knowledge or resistance.

I didn't think I proved anything. I'm trying to speculate under what circumstances could such a being could exist.

You have proved that he does not, and is exactly like an author. The characters ONLY do what he wishes, and cannot do anything but.

That is the opposite, of free will.

I heard authors say that sometimes their characters they create seem to have wills of their own. They are given personalities and act according to their nature.

Freewill in any practical sense is an entity which is free to act according to their desires. It seems apparent that man can act according to their desire. Doesn't matter that man's desire/will is dictated by external influences.

Man would still have freewill in compatibilist terms. However I'd agree the libertarian concept of freewill is unsupportable with or without a omni-etc.. being.

 

[Nakosis]

In that case, if god knows that you will stab and kill your next door neighbour next week, because his dog soiled your front yard and that you will go to hell as a result of that decision, then you will. Because you cannot change god's knowledge. So all of the praying and good works you have done in the past and future are meaningless, because god has already seen you in hell.

Yes but you still freely acted according to your desire.

 

[idav]

Yes but you still freely acted according to your desire.

We wouldn't have freely acted if god set the whole thing in motion making it so we are inevitably caused to do whatever god set from the beginning. That isn't freely acting.

 

[Nakosis]

We wouldn't have freely acted if god set the whole thing in motion making it so we are inevitably caused to do whatever god set from the beginning. That isn't freely acting.

Well, do you or don't you act according to your desires?

(this is kind of irrelevant to the existence of omni-God so maybe belong on the freewill thread.)

Compatibilism works equally well with either omni-God or determinism.

If you want to argue for/against LFW it's kind of outside the scope of my argument.

 

[Falvlun]

I think Falvlun's just refering to god's omnipresence, which places god everywhere and everywhen.

That's a good point. I hadn't worded it like that in my thoughts, but that's precisely what I was thinking.

To return to your OP, do you think that that solution (withholding the truth value of the prediction until its fulfilled) solves the problem?

 

[Willamena]

That's a good point. I hadn't worded it like that in my thoughts, but that's precisely what I was thinking.

To return to your OP, do you think that that solution (withholding the truth value of the prediction until its fulfilled) solves the problem?

I don't know as it "solves" the problem, so much as changing the problem. The image of foreknowledge is replaced with a present and manageably understood knowledge. However, it does so logically using reasonable definitions, terms and conclusions.

It says, "Perhaps it was never the right problem to begin with."

And it's pretty.

Those medieval philosophers might have been onto something.
(Or smoking something, one or the other.)

 

[idav]

Well, do you or don't you act according to your desires?

(this is kind of irrelevant to the existence of omni-God so maybe belong on the freewill thread.)

Compatibilism works equally well with either omni-God or determinism.

If you want to argue for/against LFW it's kind of outside the scope of my argument.

Compatibilism does not solve the issue of an omni God or Determinism ultimately deciding the fate of all decisions. We might be making the choice but God would be allowing it as he saw it since the beginning.

 

[muhammad_isa]

We wouldn't have freely acted if god set the whole thing in motion making it so we are inevitably caused to do whatever god set from the beginning.

Depends what level you're thinking on .. the molecular level .. the mind level .. the unknown level

However, whatever level you wish to pursue, we are still responsible for our actions, unless we are a minor or mentally certified etc.

 

[Nakosis]

Compatibilism does not solve the issue of an omni God or Determinism ultimately deciding the fate of all decisions. We might be making the choice but God would be allowing it as he saw it since the beginning.

Freewill doesn't require the ability to alter your fate. Only that the decisions you made along the way were according to your desires.

 

[idea]

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

The problem of God's foreknowledge vs. Man's free will

Knowing something, and causing it, are two different things. Free will involves where the cause originates. Just because the future is set in stone, does not mean that I did not cause it... what I cause, I have free will over.

 

[Skwim]

Freewill doesn't require the ability to alter your fate. Only that the decisions you made along the way were according to your desires.

In other words, free will is nothing more than the ability to make decisions, because, I assume, you wouldn't be making decisions contrary to your desires. That about it?

 

[idav]

Freewill doesn't require the ability to alter your fate. Only that the decisions you made along the way were according to your desires.

Yes but our desires usually will not happen and/or will not be expected due to our lack of knowledge. We are in a system that has started things since the beginning and we are a result of it and the only way out of that is knowing the probabilities of a future that has not yet taken place. Could just be a matter of math if we could calculate from a quantum physics scale. We can calculate the regular stuff but brains as of yet are unpredictable.

 

[Falvlun]

I don't know as it "solves" the problem, so much as changing the problem. The image of foreknowledge is replaced with a present and manageably understood knowledge. However, it does so logically using reasonable definitions, terms and conclusions.

It says, "Perhaps it was never the right problem to begin with."

And it's pretty.

Those medieval philosophers might have been onto something.
(Or smoking something, one or the other.)

I agree that it is a reasonable redefining of foreknowledge, but as others noted earlier in thread, I don't know if it ultimately changes anything, if you allow that god's predictions must always eventually come true.