Would foreknowledge contradict free will?

[AK4]

Sorry, but that doesn't answer the question: why does knowing what a person will do prevent him from freely choosing?

Your thinking on mans level. Gods has foreknowledge because He causes things to happen so things will turn out the way He wants. There is a cause for everything in the world and universe, therefore there is an effect that will happen and it is what God has Willed from the beginning.

Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
Isa 46:11 Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I’m not saying necessarily that foreknowledge is the cause of the future.

This is funny: you're saying exactly what you're saying you're not saying.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Quote:
I’m not saying necessarily that foreknowledge is the cause of the future.

__________________

This is funny: you're saying exactly what you're saying you're not saying.

I forgot!

 

[Malkav's Knight]

I think the primary aspect that would contradict free will is predestination. LOL, I still maintain that if predestination exsists, then time travel must as well.

 

[Inky]

If the future can be known, doesn’t that mean it cannot change? This seems incompatible with free will.

I don't have a definite opinion on this, but I wanted to share this comic, which is a good illustration of the whole issue.

(Behind this link, since it contains swear words.)

 

[Wandered Off]

Sorry, but that doesn't answer the question: why does knowing what a person will do prevent him from freely choosing?

Knowing doesn't prevent free choice. A pre-existent outcome prevents free choice. Knowing is merely an effect of a pre-existent outcome, not the cause of it.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Knowing doesn't prevent free choice. A pre-existent outcome prevents free choice. Knowing is merely an effect of a pre-existent outcome, not the cause of it.

Right. Who said anything about a pre-existent outcome?

 

[Storm]

Knowing doesn't prevent free choice. A pre-existent outcome prevents free choice. Knowing is merely an effect of a pre-existent outcome, not the cause of it.

I don't see predestination as necessary to foreknowledge. I'm also not convinced that omniscience necessitates absolute foreknowledge.

 

[Wandered Off]

Right. Who said anything about a pre-existent outcome?

If it did not exist, it could not be known.

 

[Wandered Off]

I'm also not convinced that omniscience necessitates absolute foreknowledge.

I agree!

 

[Storm]

Well, that's no fun.

 

[Wandered Off]

I am rarely accused of being fun.

 

[Inky]

I'm also not convinced that omniscience necessitates absolute foreknowledge.

That's a really good point. I hadn't thought of it before, but if the future isn't set in stone then an omniscient being wouldn't necessarily have to know what's going to happen.

I don't see predestination as necessary to foreknowledge.

I'm a little confused by this one, though, assuming predestination means a predefined outcome. If an outcome or future event isn't predefined, then it would be ambiguous between many different possibilities until the event actually happens, so there is no correct or most accurate version of it until it hits the present time. In that situation, how would foreknowledge work?

 

[Storm]

That's a really good point. I hadn't thought of it before, but if the future isn't set in stone then an omniscient being wouldn't necessarily have to know what's going to happen.

Exactly.

I'm a little confused by this one, though, assuming predestination means a predefined outcome.

You assume correctly.

If an outcome or future event isn't predefined, then it would be ambiguous between many different possibilities until the event actually happens, so there is no correct or most accurate version of it until it hits the present time. In that situation, how would foreknowledge work?

Foreknowledge could be knowledge of all possible outcomes without any being set in stone.

 

[Wandered Off]

Foreknowledge could be knowledge of all possible outcomes without any being set in stone.

Cool! That's in line with my little 'win-win' scenario in the OP! So I guess that's no fun either.

EDIT: Because that was pages ago, I'll repeat it here:

What if the future is made up of an infinite number of possible paths, for each of which God knows exactly what the outcome would be, but doesn't know which one you'll pick? For example, God knows exactly what the future would look like if you made choice "A" and exactly what it would look like if you made choice "B", but doesn't know which you'll choose or how others will react. That kind of plays both sides of the argument... It gives the foreknowledge contingent an all-knowing image of God without surrendering free will, all in one convenient package. God specifically knows exactly what will happen and how IN EVERY POSSIBLE SITUATION and still retains the uncertainty about which of those completely known futures will occur. God doesn't have to know which one will occur to know EXACTLY what the future would look like. Foreknowledge proponents get their 'rewindable video' (an infinite number of them, in fact) and opponents get their free will. Win win! : hamster :

 

[Inky]

Foreknowledge could be knowledge of all possible outcomes without any being set in stone.

Ah yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

Cool! That's in line with my little 'win-win' scenario in the OP! So I guess that's no fun either.

Entirely too much agreeing in this thread!

 

[Heneni]

It depends. Is the "forecast" speculation or actual knowledge? The scenario works for me if it's a good guess but has a possibility of being wrong. If, on the other hand, it's actual knowledge, that means the physical entity is incapable of doing other than what is already known - which is contrary to free will.

Im curious what your thoughts are about this....

If we are sure that we are all going to die, the outcome of our lives set in stone, fixed, does that contradict free will?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

If the future can be known, doesn’t that mean it cannot change? This seems incompatible with free will. If we’re just playing out the inevitable conclusion, then the so-called “Great Commission” (or any other commandment, for that matter) is a complete waste of time. If your future can be known, can you change it? No. If you cannot change your future, do you really have free will?

I’m not saying necessarily that foreknowledge is the cause of the future. Instead, the fact that foreknowledge is possible only means that the future must already exist somewhere. It is the existence of a future, not the foreknowledge, that seems to contradict free will. The knowledge is a by-product or effect of a fixed outcome, not the other way around. If the outcome can be known, it necessarily exists. That someone could become aware of this is incidental. The choice is fixed and cannot be changed.

For a mortal analogy, let's think about a history book, say a biography. I can read the outcome and know how the person's life ends. If I know the ending, I also know that the person can't change the end. My knowledge was not causal, but the person no longer has free will for a different outcome.

Some who think foreknowledge eliminates free will believe in a different form of omniscience: God knows all that can be known, but the future does not exist yet, so it cannot be known. The only part of the future God knows in this view is that part He will directly create. Omniscience, in this definition, is forward-limited. The main benefit to this position is that it bypasses the free will objection entirely. In addition, it does away with the pointlessness of creation.

Others argue that this is terribly demeaning to their concept of almighty God. Knowing the future is an integral part of the job description. If God didn’t know the future, they say, that would somehow imply a lack of total control, which is simply bad form for an almighty deity. It also seems to make God as bound by time as the rest of us schmucks.

- - - - - -

Maybe there's a compromise that might make both sides happy. No doubt someone else has thought of this already, but I haven’t seen it elsewhere, so I’ll call it “Wandered’s Compromise”. It’s kind of a Heisenberg variation on Molinism (or maybe not).

What if the future is made up of an infinite number of possible paths, for each of which God knows exactly what the outcome would be, but doesn't know which one you'll pick? For example, God knows exactly what the future would look like if you made choice "A" and exactly what it would look like if you made choice "B", but doesn't know which you'll choose or how others will react. That kind of plays both sides of the argument... It gives the foreknowledge contingent an all-knowing image of God without surrendering free will, all in one convenient package. God specifically knows exactly what will happen and how IN EVERY POSSIBLE SITUATION and still retains the uncertainty about which of those completely known futures will occur. God doesn't have to know which one will occur to know EXACTLY what the future would look like. Foreknowledge proponents get their 'rewindable video' (an infinite number of them, in fact) and opponents get their free will. Win win! : hamster :


OK, it's all hypothetical, but any thoughts? Am I out in left field again?

Pretty much what I've been trying to say....but then I tell myself.....there are no gods.....and that's the end of that free will myth.....

 

[Storm]

Pretty much what I've been trying to say....but then I tell myself.....there are no gods.....and that's the end of that free will myth.....

I'm curious, how does atheism negate free will? There's a cogent argument for materialism doing so, but that's not necessitated by atheism.

 

[Wandered Off]

If we are sure that we are all going to die, the outcome of our lives set in stone, fixed, does that contradict free will?

Hmmm... I think I'm missing the point, because I'd say we don't have free will not to die, but that doesn't seem to be what you mean. Plus I used too many negatives in that sentence. -5.