Would foreknowledge contradict free will?

[doppelganger]

The notion that there must be a "God the Creator" because the universe requires a first cause or prime mover fundamentally refutes "free will."

 

[idea]

Then I will rephrase: If an outcome is already 'in stone' before you actually take an action, then you didn't set it there. If a future exists "in stone" before you take action, then you can act only according to that script, which is not free will - irrespective of how long you existed.
That's a non-sequitur. Freedom of will is determined by the existence or lack of choice, and origin does not impact this.

8 Now whether there is more than one time appointed for men to rise it mattereth not; for all do not die at once, and this mattereth not; all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men.
(Book of Mormon | Alma40:8)

Time will not exist after we die... it does not exist for God, so to say "before" or "after" is rather meaningless in the eternal nature of things. To say the future is set in stone - when future / past / etc. does not really exist... no cause/effect etc... to try and think outside of time is hard, I guess it might be close to everything existing all at once?



We are who we are, we act how we act through our own nature. We are slaves only to ourself, our own charater, our own will etc... We own ourself.

Experiences here show us who we are - does not show anything to God, He already knows who we are. It is a journey of self-discovery.

Is free will a question of choice?
Or a question of whether or not another controls us?
I would say the latter. Another being cannot control our character (unless we allow them to) therefore we have free will.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
God gives us shoice where we did not have any before. Just left to ourself, we would never change, we would be trapped by our own nature. Interactions can change our very nature though. By following another's example, learning from another, we can actually change and escape our initial nature....

emergence thing -
1 bird + 1 bird + 1 bird = 3 birds

emergence = interactions create entities not found in the parts... whole = greater than the sum of the parts

1 bird + 1 bird + 1 bird = 3 birds + babies + families + talking + singing + v formation flock + .....

you get the drift. Through interactions entities evolve that cannot be traced to the parts (one bird all on it's own will never reproduce, baby is a procuct of the interaction, not the part, as an example)

we are not bound to what the "part" dicates to us if we utilize interactions.

Love, don't lie, don't steal, humble, selfless, etc. etc.... it is all about how we interact with one another right? Interactions open the door for infinite creative potential, the ability to change.

 

[idea]

The notion that there must be a "God the Creator" because the universe requires a first cause or prime mover fundamentally refutes "free will."

I agree. I believe in a God who is an "organizer" not a "creator"... He only organizes what allows itself to be formed.

If He created everything, there would be no need to be refined in the fire so to speak.

If He created everything there would be no free will, there would be no love (love has to be freely given etc.) there would be no evil, no good (good and evil are relative terms, they do not exist without each other). If God created everything there would only be one thing - only God - that is it.

We can clearly see that there are things that are not of God - therefore God did not "create" everything. Has not formed everything etc.

8 But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.
(Old Testament | Isaiah64:8)
the potter did not make the clay. He forms what eternally exists.

 

[Wandered Off]

Time will not exist after we die... it does not exist for God, so to say "before" or "after" is rather meaningless in the eternal nature of things. To say the future is set in stone - when future / past / etc. does not really exist... no cause/effect etc... to try and think outside of time is hard, I guess it might be close to everything existing all at once?

This thread was really more about about now, before we die. If an outcome pre-exists an action, then you cannot choose to act any differently from the pre-existent outcome.

Another being cannot control our character (unless we allow them to) therefore we have free will.

If our future already exists anywhere, in any form prior to our actions, then free will is merely an illusion resulting from limited perspective.

 

[doppelganger]

I agree. I believe in a God who is an "organizer" not a "creator"... He only organizes what allows itself to be formed.

"Creation ex nihilo" or "creation by bringing order out of chaos" is one topic on which LDS orthodoxy holds a decided edge over "mainstream" Christian orthodoxy in the clarity of its thought (and its translation of Ancient Hebrew). How does a thing "allow itself to be formed," though? Aren't you putting the cart before the horse, so to speak?

 

[idea]

This thread was really more about about now, before we die. If an outcome pre-exists an action, then you cannot choose to act any differently from the pre-existent outcome.

It is hard to separate past present future though. before we die, after we die, before we were born, it all contributes to who we are right? I would not be what I am now if I had not been what I was then... sort of thing.

If our future already exists anywhere, in any form prior to our actions, then free will is merely an illusion resulting from limited perspective.

no future, no past, no time, just our character. we control our character, then, now, and in the future.

 

[doppelganger]

It is hard to separate past present future though. before we die, after we die, before we were born, it all contributes to who we are right? I would not be what I am now if I had not been what I was then... sort of thing.

Depends on how you are treating "after we die".

no future, no past, no time, just our character. we control our character, then, now, and in the future.

"Character" controls the self, not the other way around. Try to "will" yourself to believe something that you don't believe (or not believe something that you do). Get back to us with the results.

 

[idea]

How does a thing "allow itself to be formed," though? Aren't you putting the cart before the horse, so to speak?

Interesting question. For us, there is a big difference between a sin and a transgression. We say Adam did not sin, rather it was a transgression because he performed an action without the benefit of experience to know what that action would lead to.
I think that is why sin/transgression is necessary here… We experience some things, after the fact we understand what is what, and then we can make an informed decision.
The atonement allows us to make informed decisions without being condemned for transgressions. (We are accountable for what we know, don’t go trying to have “experiences” when you already know better of course J)


Usually we have to make a choice not understanding the full outcome of things - which is not really a choice.... You can't choose if you don't fully understand what you are choosing between right?

The atonement allows us to make a choice, experience the good/bad consequences, and then make that choice again – if with further knowledge we regret a choice, we ask for forgiveness, and it is wiped clean… if that makes sense? Our good/bad experiences here are the only way to make informed choices about things...

 

[doppelganger]

Interesting question. For us, there is a big difference between a sin and a transgression. We say Adam did not sin, rather it was a transgression because he performed an action without the benefit of experience to know what that action would lead to.

That was an action that was necessary for "God" to be though, so I don't consider it a transgression - except on God's part.

The atonement allows us to make informed decisions without being condemned for transgressions. (We are accountable for what we know, don’t go trying to have “experiences” when you already know better of course J)

Well, in that case, God is definitely the transgressor and the one in need of atonement.

Our good/bad experiences here are the only way to make informed choices about things...

Are you sure about that? If so, then the promise the serpent made to Eve would be "true", right?

 

[idea]

Depends on how you are treating "after we die".



"Character" controls the self, not the other way around. Try to "will" yourself to believe something that you don't believe (or not believe something that you do). Get back to us with the results.

I was not always LDS

No, you cannot force yourself to believe something, you can choose what knowledge to peruse though. Follow the sci method - hypothesis, test, observe results...
Hypothesis: God exists
Test: Become selfless, give all money to poor, repent, live righteous life, be honest, etc. etc…
Observe results…
To the extent that we do the test, is the extent that we will be able to “observe the results” and come to a knowledge of things… J

 

[idea]

Are you sure about that? If so, then the promise the serpent made to Eve would be "true", right?

right.

11 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had aseed, and never should have bknown good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.
12 And Adam and aEve blessed the name of God, and they made all things bknown unto their sons and their daughters.
(Pearl of Great Price | Moses5:11 - 12)

11 For it must needs be, that there is an aopposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.
12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no apurpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the bjustice of God.
13 And if ye shall say there is ano law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not bthere is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.
14 And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and alearning; for there is a God, and he hath bcreated all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be cacted upon.
15 And to bring about his eternal apurposes in the end of man, after he had bcreated our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the cfowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the dforbidden efruit in fopposition to the gtree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.
16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should aact for himself. Wherefore, man could not bact for himself save it should be that he was centiced by the one or the other.
(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi2:11 - 16)

(please excuse the a,b,c, subs)

You know Einstein’s theory of relativity? Good is relative to evil. Good does not exist without evil…. Through God, through the fall, we can experience what is good.

 

[doppelganger]

I was not always LDS

Of course not. But did you will yourself to change or did you have ideas and memories to give meaning to your experiences that led you to change what you believed in? Do you think you could have willed yourself to believe in an LDS mode of interpreting your experiences and have those ideas and memories arrive later?

you can choose what knowledge to peruse though.

I don't think that's the case, either. Whether or not I look at some new information is itself a product of an aesthetic over which I have no control.

 

[doppelganger]

right.

11 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had aseed, and never should have bknown good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.
12 And Adam and aEve blessed the name of God, and they made all things bknown unto their sons and their daughters.
(Pearl of Great Price | Moses5:11 - 12)

"Obedient" is an offensive word in this context to me. Otherwise, this is a nice passage.

 

[doppelganger]

You know Einstein’s theory of relativity? Good is relative to evil. Good does not exist without evil…. Through God, through the fall, we can experience what is good.

I agree with that, though the use of "through God" here is inconsistent with any explanation of LDS "theology" I've read.

 

[idea]

Of course not. But did you will yourself to change or did you have ideas and memories to give meaning to your experiences that led you to change what you believed in? Do you think you could have willed yourself to believe in an LDS mode of interpreting your experiences and have those ideas and memories arrive later?

I don't think that's the case, either. Whether or not I look at some new information is itself a product of an aesthetic over which I have no control.

A little out of my personal history...

One Sunday, with nothing better to do, I tagged along with him to church. *** was assigned to teach a class of 12 and 13 year olds, I did not know anyone else at the church, and not brave enough to just go into a meeting on my own so I followed *** into his class, and sat down with the other little kids. A little embarrassing for an adult to be sitting in on a primary class, but I would have been embarrassed anywhere I went. The class was on the plan of salvation. *** drew on the board circles and lines representing the pre-existence, earth, prison/paradise, and the celestial/telestial/terrestrial glories. As I sat looking at the chalkboard the Holy Ghost bore a powerful witness to me that what I was looking at was true – it was what Budhists would call “enlightenment” my mind was literally opened so that for a few powerful moments I knew what I was looking at was true – and what was more, I became aware of a power in the room that was above and beyond what my eyes were telling me was there. It was the moment that changed everything – where religion went from people trying to be goodie-two-shoes stuck-up self-righteous prideful control freaks trying to manipulate me and force me into guilt trips – sorry – but that had become my viewpoint of Christian churches – – Religion became real, so real it hurt. Of course knowing something is real, and understanding where you fit into the big picture are two very different things.

I guess we all go awhile "without" - to gain the experience of what it is like. We will also (in this life or in the next) be given the chance to see what it is like "with". We will be able to compare the with and without, and make an informed descion. To keep us from either extreme would limit our ability to choose.

Have to run - I'll be back later!

 

[lunamoth]

I don't think that's the case, either. Whether or not I look at some new information is itself a product of an aesthetic over which I have no control.

I ponder such comments and they always take me to the abyss. Do they take you to the Abyss of meaninglessness?

And then, having looked at the Abyss, I find that my life has a lot of meaning anyway.

 

[idea]

"Obedient" is an offensive word in this context to me. Otherwise, this is a nice passage.
[/size][/font][/size][/font]

Really really fast, (people knocking at my door!) The obedience thing – I don’t think it is about trying to control us – I think it is about us becoming selfless – the ability to trust people… emergence / relationships thing… can’t become one / united / experience what is beyond our self if we cannot let go of personal desires and embrace what comes from without as well as within.

“Obey me” is just another way of saying “embrace what is outside of yourself”… JMO.

 

[doppelganger]

Do they take you to the Abyss of meaninglessness?

I think the only way to get to the Abyss of Meaninglessness is to go looking for meaning . . . and then all roads eventually lead to the Abyss of Meaninglessness.



Do you look into the abyss? Or does the abyss look into you?

 

[lunamoth]

I think the only way to get to the Abyss of Meaninglessness is to go looking for meaning . . . and then all roads eventually lead to the Abyss of Meaninglessness.

So we exist in a non-critical suspended state of 'beingness.'

Do you look into the abyss? Or does the abyss look into you?

I am cautious around the Abyss.

 

[Wandered Off]

It is hard to separate past present future though. before we die, after we die, before we were born, it all contributes to who we are right? I would not be what I am now if I had not been what I was then... sort of thing.

Choices are temporal entities. There is no way around that. There is a state of being presented with a choice, and a state after the decision is made. You cannot remove aspects of time from choice, because the very concept deals with at least two states that require passage of time to exist.