Free Will and Omniscience

[Sparko]

It would not be you causing them, but rather the mere existence of that information would necessarily have to agree.

Perhaps what we're dealing with here is another quantum function.

ok, does the fact that you know that Oswald killed Kennedy mean that his choice was predetermined? Or do you know what he did BECAUSE he chose to do exactly that?

I argue it is the latter, Your knowledge is based on what he chose to do. Your knowing it (now or even before if you were say, a psychic or time traveler) doesn't mean it was predetermined. All actions are "fixed" once a choice has been made real. Before Oswald killed Kennedy he could have chosen not to, but once he chose to pull that trigger, that action was fixed in time. So if your knowledge is dependent on his action/choice, then you would "always" know what he chose to do. Even if you could somehow travel before the event in a time machine. Your knowledge comes from what he chose to do at a specific time and place. God's knowledge is similar. Think of him existing at all times, past present and future. By existing in the future, he will know all past actions taken by everyone. But his knowledge is the same as your knowledge of the past (just more extensive). What he knows is dependent on what you chose or will choose to do.

[Sparko]

Of course, when you put omniscience and omnipotence together, it gets a little more dicey. Assuming God created a universe that was exactly what he wanted, knowing in advance how everything would turn out, including all of your decisions, it's a little harder to say that he didn't influence (or mandate) your decisions. If he didn't like some decision that you make, he could have created a slightly different universe.

The bible is full of God using his omnipotence to influence key people's actions in order to get the result he wants. For example Jonas. He didn't mind control Jonas to warn the Ninivites, he just kept arranging things to get him to do what he wanted, That doesn't mean he controls all actions. Most of our actions and decisions won't change God's plans one way or another. But if you belong to God, then you want his help and you want to do what God wants. You want him to influence your life in a way to follow his will. That is part of submitting your will to God's. Even then God doesn't MAKE you do anything.

[Stoic]

The bible is full of God using his omnipotence to influence key people's actions in order to get the result he wants. For example Jonas. He didn't mind control Jonas to warn the Ninivites, he just kept arranging things to get him to do what he wanted, That doesn't mean he controls all actions. Most of our actions and decisions won't change God's plans one way or another. But if you belong to God, then you want his help and you want to do what God wants. You want him to influence your life in a way to follow his will. That is part of submitting your will to God's. Even then God doesn't MAKE you do anything.

I suppose you could say that most of your decisions are free because God doesn't really care which way they go. But for the ones God does care about, they're going to go the way he wants (assuming both omniscience and omnipotence). And this is true even if you really don't want to do what God wants. I'm not sure such a situation can really be called "free will".

[Sparko]

I suppose you could say that most of your decisions are free because God doesn't really care which way they go. But for the ones God does care about, they're going to go the way he wants (assuming both omniscience and omnipotence). And this is true even if you really don't want to do what God wants. I'm not sure such a situation can really be called "free will".

I just covered that in my last post. I don't think God forcing some things here and there is what Machinist is talking about though. I think he is more concerned that knowing all actions somehow means no free will at all, which is what I was addressing. God's omniscience doesn't interfere with free will, but sometimes his omnipotence does. He is God after all. But the bible shows that even in those cases he doesn't just MAKE you choose an action like in a "controlling your mind" sort of way, he will just sort of lead you to choose what he wants by doing things like he did with Job, or using Moses to get Pharoah to let the Israelites go.

[Machinist]

God's omniscience doesn't interfere with free will, but sometimes his omnipotence does.

I wouldn't say that His omniscience interferes, but rather all actions must necessarily be an exact copy of His foreknowledge. Now I guess i'm arguing from the perspective of a Calvinist here, but I am not necessarily Calvinist. I do go to a Calvinist Church, but they have never really expounded upon this doctrine. I think that it does have some merit though and does seem easier to reconcile.

[Sparko]

I wouldn't say that His omniscience interferes, but rather all actions must necessarily be an exact copy of His foreknowledge. Now I guess i'm arguing from the perspective of a Calvinist here, but I am not necessarily Calvinist. I do go to a Calvinist Church, but they have never really expounded upon this doctrine. I think that it does have some merit though and does seem easier to reconcile.

I understand what you are saying but you are putting the cart before the horse. His perfect knowledge is dependent on what we actually choose to do, not the other way around. If he knows you will choose to eat a pop tart next wednesday at 8AM it is because you will freely choose to do that. Just like I know I ate cheerios yesterday. My knowing what I ate is dependent on what I chose to eat. If I had eaten a pop tart, then that is what I would know I ate yesterday.

If you choose to eat a pop tart next wednesday at 8 AM, then that is what God knows you will eat. If you choose to eat something else, then that is what God knows. Your choice informs God's knowledge of that choice.

also the use of the word "foreknowledge" is a misnomer. That is just from our current temporal location. God is outside of time. He knows everything all the "time"

It's just "knowledge" to God. Like you holding a video tape in your hand that contains a recording of a football game. Every action on that tape was freely made, but you from the outside, know every play, every move. Even if the people on the tape are at 1 minute in, you know what they will do at 15 minutes in because you watched it all before and are not tied to the time in the tape. You are outside that time.

[Machinist]

It's just "knowledge" to God. Like you holding a video tape in your hand that contains a recording of a football game. Every action on that tape was freely made, but you from the outside, know every play, every move. Even if the people on the tape are at 1 minute in, you know what they will do at 15 minutes in because you watched it all before and are not tied to the time in the tape. You are outside that time.

That's a great analogy.

Let me ask you this: What about the Calvinist position on this matter do you not like, or what about it do you find illogical?

[Ronson]

That's a great analogy.

Let me ask you this: What about the Calvinist position on this matter do you not like, or what about it do you find illogical?

You didn't ask me but I'll offer my two cents...

Calvinism breeds arrogance, IMO, and that is not Christlike. That alone makes it bad theology. If God predetermines salvation based solely on some criteria known only to Him, and we are pawns in a chess game without any ability to please God, then what's the purpose? The Calvinist will say "I'm chosen. I'm special. You're not." And it makes proselytizing pointless.

It is an extreme interpretation of Christ's teachings and it simply doesn't make a lot of sense.

[Thoughtful Monk]

Even though we're drifting off topic, I'll throw in my two cents as well on Calvinism. I agree with Ronson by the way.

I've found too many Bible verse have to mean something really different from the obvious reading for Calvinism to be correct. Its almost Gnostic - you have to have secret knowledge before you can correctly understand the Bible.

[Littlejoe]

I understand what you are saying but you are putting the cart before the horse. His perfect knowledge is dependent on what we actually choose to do, not the other way around. If he knows you will choose to eat a pop tart next wednesday at 8AM it is because you will freely choose to do that. Just like I know I ate cheerios yesterday. My knowing what I ate is dependent on what I chose to eat. If I had eaten a pop tart, then that is what I would know I ate yesterday.

If you choose to eat a pop tart next wednesday at 8 AM, then that is what God knows you will eat. If you choose to eat something else, then that is what God knows. Your choice informs God's knowledge of that choice.

also the use of the word "foreknowledge" is a misnomer. That is just from our current temporal location. God is outside of time. He knows everything all the "time"

It's just "knowledge" to God. Like you holding a video tape in your hand that contains a recording of a football game. Every action on that tape was freely made, but you from the outside, know every play, every move. Even if the people on the tape are at 1 minute in, you know what they will do at 15 minutes in because you watched it all before and are not tied to the time in the tape. You are outside that time.

Yet, God knowing makes it fatalistic regardless of whether you think he causes it or not. If God knows completely and perfectly what you will do, then that is what you will do when the time comes. That is the very definition of fate is it not?
This Theology has resulted in the theology that makes God being outside of Time the only alternative. That theory can't be proven from any scripture, it is inferred from this fatalistic belief of the nature of God's omniscience. The OVT view of Greg Boyd is that God knows everything that is knowable...some things he knows as a certainty, others he knows all the possible alternative choices that can be chosen and the outcomes of each of them. This view is much more in line with Scripture than the fatalistic view, and doesn't force God into the Atemporal, Impassive (unfeeling), Immutable (unchangeability in any way including theophany) state, but allows for a God who is dynamically interactive with creation, feels our pains and sorrows, and becomes a living sacrifice for our sins.
ETA: And still allows true Free Will decisions.

From Greg Boyd's article on this:

https://reknew.org/2017/04/classical...ary-paradoxes/

The traditional view of God that is embraced by most—what is called “classical theology”—works from the assumption that God’s essential divine nature is atemporal, immutable, and impassible. The Church Fathers fought to articulate and defend the absolute distinction between the Creator and creation and they did this—in a variety of ways—by defining God’s eternal nature over-and-against the creation. Thus they embraced a conception of God’s being in his transcendent nature that contrasted with God’s accommodating activity with his people. God’s essential eternal nature was defined over-and-against God’s ultimate accommodation in the Incarnation and Crucifixion of Christ.

This view of God generated many impenetrable Christological conundrums. How, for example, does the God who is “above” change nevertheless become a human? How does the God who is “above” suffering nevertheless suffer on Calvary? How does the God who is “above” time nevertheless enter human history at a particular point in time? And how can the God who is “above” being affected by anything outside of God’s self nevertheless get crucified by humans? This “over-and-against” quality of God in the classical tradition is most clearly seen in the fact that classical theologians generally decided that the changeability, passions, and suffering of the Son of God must be ascribed to his humanity but not unambiguously to his divinity.

[Machinist]

That's very interesting. Thank you!.

[Sparko]

That's a great analogy.

Let me ask you this: What about the Calvinist position on this matter do you not like, or what about it do you find illogical?

It turns us into puppets who are not responsible for any of our actions. How can God hold someone responsible for their actions if he is the one causing the actions. It would be like a puppeteer getting upset with his marionette for doing exactly what the puppeteer made it do. We become robots. Even our thoughts are just what God makes us think. So our thinking that we have free will is just because God makes us think that, despite us not having it. God becomes evil.

[Sparko]

Yet, God knowing makes it fatalistic regardless of whether you think he causes it or not. If God knows completely and perfectly what you will do, then that is what you will do when the time comes. That is the very definition of fate is it not?
This Theology has resulted in the theology that makes God being outside of Time the only alternative. That theory can't be proven from any scripture, it is inferred from this fatalistic belief of the nature of God's omniscience. The OVT view of Greg Boyd is that God knows everything that is knowable...some things he knows as a certainty, others he knows all the possible alternative choices that can be chosen and the outcomes of each of them. This view is much more in line with Scripture than the fatalistic view, and doesn't force God into the Atemporal, Impassive (unfeeling), Immutable (unchangeability in any way including theophany) state, but allows for a God who is dynamically interactive with creation, feels our pains and sorrows, and becomes a living sacrifice for our sins.
ETA: And still allows true Free Will decisions.

From Greg Boyd's article on this:

https://reknew.org/2017/04/classical...ary-paradoxes/

The traditional view of God that is embraced by most—what is called “classical theology”—works from the assumption that God’s essential divine nature is atemporal, immutable, and impassible. The Church Fathers fought to articulate and defend the absolute distinction between the Creator and creation and they did this—in a variety of ways—by defining God’s eternal nature over-and-against the creation. Thus they embraced a conception of God’s being in his transcendent nature that contrasted with God’s accommodating activity with his people. God’s essential eternal nature was defined over-and-against God’s ultimate accommodation in the Incarnation and Crucifixion of Christ.

This view of God generated many impenetrable Christological conundrums. How, for example, does the God who is “above” change nevertheless become a human? How does the God who is “above” suffering nevertheless suffer on Calvary? How does the God who is “above” time nevertheless enter human history at a particular point in time? And how can the God who is “above” being affected by anything outside of God’s self nevertheless get crucified by humans? This “over-and-against” quality of God in the classical tradition is most clearly seen in the fact that classical theologians generally decided that the changeability, passions, and suffering of the Son of God must be ascribed to his humanity but not unambiguously to his divinity.

You are doing the same thing Machinist was doing. Assuming that God's knowing what you will do makes it happen. It doesn't. Since God is not limited to one time, you can't stick God in one time and say "well he knows what I am going to do tomorrow so I have no choice" God isn't sitting here knowing what you will do tomorrow, He is here, and he is IN tomorrow, and next week and next century, knowing what you did tomorrow.

His knowing you will do X tomorrow is no different than YOU knowing you did Y yesterday. Does your knowing you did Y yesterday mean that you had no choice in doing Y? Of course not. You only know you did Y because you chose to do Y yesterday. If you did Y1, then you would know you did Y1 yesterday. Every choice can only happen once. Once you choose to do Y or Y1, that's it. You can't go back and change it.

So if you are going to do X or X1 tomorrow, whichever you choose, it will be fixed after you choose it. You can't change it. Doesn't mean you didn't choose it out of free will. And whatever you choose to do tomorrow X or X1, God knows it. He has always known it (if you can talk about "always" when talking of a being who is not limited by time)

And OVT Turns God into just some superhuman who is stuck in time like the rest of us and can't know the future but just guesses what will happen..

[Machinist]

You are doing the same thing Machinist was doing. Assuming that God's knowing what you will do makes it happen. ..

Action verbs (makes), are not part of the equation in that view. It's more of a Holistic view...a Oneness of foreknowledge and history.

Again, not saying I am of that view. I'm just trying to understand it.

[Machinist]

You didn't ask me but I'll offer my two cents...

Calvinism breeds arrogance, IMO, and that is not Christlike. That alone makes it bad theology. If God predetermines salvation based solely on some criteria known only to Him, and we are pawns in a chess game without any ability to please God, then what's the purpose? The Calvinist will say "I'm chosen. I'm special. You're not." And it makes proselytizing pointless.

.

Yet they are into evangelism at the church I go to. I'm quite certain they are Calvinist. I've never really asked anyone, but I think I will.