Omniscience and free will

[TCHOP561]

I know where I stand on this issue. I am a firm believer that the two can coexist. How do you explain to those who believe otherwise, that Omniscience and free will cannot coexist?

I apologize in advance if this question has already been discussed on these forums.

[nd925]

Forgive me, I'm trying to fully understand the question. Are you asking if God has free will and is omniscient?
I believe God is omniscient and has free will.
He didn't have to create us - free will.
God knows all things - omniscience.

[TCHOP561]

If God is Omniscient , He is all knowing.
That means that in advance he knows what we will do.
If He knew yesterday that today I will do the laundry - am I free to NOT do the laundry today?

[B. W.]

If God is Omniscient , He is all knowing.
That means that in advance he knows what we will do.
If He knew yesterday that today I will do the laundry - am I free to NOT do the laundry today?

Depends if you want to do it or not...

More amazing - he knows everything and we still exist despite this...

God is all powerful and to be so involves the ability to work through all things. If God made you do the laundry today then he would not be all powerful. This would prove that God, by being a martinet, would not able to work through all things as strings are needed and if strings or force are needed — then he cannot work without strings. By force alone places a limit on his being all powerful.

God permits his created beings certain abilities to do things on their own and decide things freely and in this way he truly works through all things…prove this so so to none other than himself.
-
-
-

[Gabrielman]

Here's how I see it. God already knows what you are going to do, but being a just and loving God, gives you a chance to change that. I think he may try to push you in the right direction, but he will not make your decions for you. God knows what you will do, but he also knows you can change and do something different. Example: You are going to rob a bank tomorrow (please don't!) and God does something, (maybe he just puts into your heart not to), now you may rob the bank, but there is also a chance that you will decide not to. That doesn't mean God will stop you, he prays that you change. It's kind of like when you are born he already knows if you will go to heaven or not. However he won't kill you on the spot because life is a test and a chance to make your decision. He is a just God and will let you live your life and pray that you change. Did that help at all?

"My own worst enemy is the man that stares back at me in the mirror."- No clue.

[DannyM]

God knows what you will do, but he also knows you can change and do something different. Example: You are going to rob a bank tomorrow (please don't!) and God does something, (maybe he just puts into your heart not to), now you may rob the bank, but there is also a chance that you will decide not to. That doesn't mean God will stop you, he prays that you change.

Right, I agreed with your post up until this bit here- if God knows what we do - which I endorse - why would he pray that we change? This seems to be a logical contradiction- if God knows what I will do, praying I will change would logically not affect what I will do. Therefore God, while knowing each and every turn we take, would not - even by way of prayer - intrude upon our free will.

God bless

[waynepii]

God knows what we will do. Doesn't that mean He also knows whether we are going to change? Doesn't He know what we ultimately will do? In effect, doesn't He know NOW who will be saved and who will not? In which case, why does He have us play out our roles since He already knows the outcome? Can we really surprise Him?

[Jac3510]

He lets us play out our roles, Wayne, because if He didn't, then we wouldn't actually DO anything. To say, "I know what you will do" only has any meaning if you actually do it. If He were to cut off the world now it would not be, "I know what you will do" but rather "I know what you would have done." Those, however, are different claims, and justice on the basis of the latter isn't really justice.

What was that movie with Tom Cruise where they would go back in time and arrest criminals before they committed a crime then bring them back to the future and punish them? It brought out a very interesting moral question. Can you punish somebody for something that they would have done as if they already did it? I don't think so, and most people, I think, agree. You would have to charge someone with conspiracy to commit a crime, not with the crime itself. But even there, note that the charge of conspiracy is a charge of something that they already did! There's just no getting around it. Justice requires judgement against actual actions, not potential ones.

If God is just, then, He needs to let everything play out--not for His benefit, but for ours--so that we can see, at the end of the day, the justice of it all.

[waynepii]

There's a big difference between you or I saying "I know what you'll do" and an all-knowing, omniscient God saying it. There is a possibility (however slight) that you or I might do something the other never expected. God KNOWS what we will do with absolutely no chance that we will do something other than what He pre-knew we would do. Much like watching a movie for the 1,000th time (He knows everything that will happen) - it must be sooo boring.

This brings up an interesting question - God knew Adolph Hitler would ultimately cause the deaths of millions of innocent people. Why did He allow that particular conception to take place? Doesn't that make Him complicit in all the evil that resulted?

[Jac3510]

Again, I want to emphasize the distinction I made earlier. There is a difference in anyone (God or man) saying that they know what someone will do vs knowing what someone would have done. One is actual, the other potential. Can a judgment be just if it is based on potential rather than actual? I don't think so.

Regarding the Hitler question, no, God is not complicit in the evil. If so, you have to say that God would have to stop all evil from happening since evil is evil. But in that case, there would be no such thing as choice. If I can only choose to do A, then A is not a choice. It's been determined.

Someone may say, "But that was so much worse. Why didn't got stop that?" And the answer here is that maybe God has stopped things that were so much worse. Perhaps what Hitler did is SO BAD precisely because that is one of the worst things God allowed. But perhaps there were FAR WORSE things that He did not allow, and thus, perhaps our frame of reference is skewed. Wherever God sets the limit for "this is the worst evil allowable", that limit will appear to us to be absolutely horrific. Why? Because we would have no frame of reference otherwise.

It's the nature of choice. If you allow choice, the necessary result is that things like the holocaust can happen. If you deny the possibility of things like the holocaust, you deny the possibility of choice, ergo, you deny the possibility of moral accountability. Then you only have automotons. Remember, my friend, there are worse things than death and destruction. Slavery would be one such example.

[waynepii]

Again, I want to emphasize the distinction I made earlier. There is a difference in anyone (God or man) saying that they know what someone will do vs knowing what someone would have done. One is actual, the other potential. Can a judgment be just if it is based on potential rather than actual? I don't think so.

If God is all-knowing, He knows BEFORE someone is conceived how that person will turn out, what he/she will or will not do, and what that person's fate (heaven, hell, ... ) WILL be - no probability to it all, dead certainty.

Regarding the Hitler question, no, God is not complicit in the evil. If so, you have to say that God would have to stop all evil from happening since evil is evil. But in that case, there would be no such thing as choice. If I can only choose to do A, then A is not a choice. It's been determined.

If you or I made something that had even a high probability of maiming or killing someone (a bomb for instance) and our device did, in fact, cause the death or severe injury of another. We would be criminally responsible for the death or injury, even if it was not our intent to cause the death or injury to occur.

Hitler is just one example, God has unleashed a seemingly endless series of monsters on the human race. He knew exactly what each of them would do. How is He not complicit?

Someone may say, "But that was so much worse. Why didn't got stop that?" And the answer here is that maybe God has stopped things that were so much worse. Perhaps what Hitler did is SO BAD precisely because that is one of the worst things God allowed. But perhaps there were FAR WORSE things that He did not allow, and thus, perhaps our frame of reference is skewed. Wherever God sets the limit for "this is the worst evil allowable", that limit will appear to us to be absolutely horrific. Why? Because we would have no frame of reference otherwise.

It would seem God has a pretty high tolerance for evil.

And why would God (seemingly) go out of His way to save Hitler from the many attempts on his life. If a "holy' person had survived all those attempts, he/she would doubtless be a saint by now.

It's the nature of choice. If you allow choice, the necessary result is that things like the holocaust can happen. If you deny the possibility of things like the holocaust, you deny the possibility of choice, ergo, you deny the possibility of moral accountability. Then you only have automotons. Remember, my friend, there are worse things than death and destruction. Slavery would be one such example.

Isn't slavery is condoned by The Bible.

[Jac3510]

If God is all-knowing, He knows BEFORE someone is conceived how that person will turn out, what he/she will or will not do, and what that person's fate (heaven, hell, ... ) WILL be - no probability to it all, dead certainty.

Yes, I've not disputed that. I'm trying to get you to see the distinction between seeing what some WILL do and seeing what someone WOULD HAVE done. This is a basic distinction--it forms the basis of the whole argument for middle knowledge, actually (which, by the way, I don't follow, but that's another story). Do you see how if God prevented someone from doing something, then it is absurd to say they WILL do it?

If you or I made something that had even a high probability of maiming or killing someone (a bomb for instance) and our device did, in fact, cause the death or severe injury of another. We would be criminally responsible for the death or injury, even if it was not our intent to cause the death or injury to occur.

Hitler is just one example, God has unleashed a seemingly endless series of monsters on the human race. He knew exactly what each of them would do. How is He not complicit?

Because we have choice. If God prevented someone from doing evil and only let them do good, do you see how the entire notion of "good" is erased? Let me give you a very practical example. Suppose you see an old lady having trouble crossing the road. All other things being equal, if you choose to go lend her a hand, wouldn't you agree that you've done a pretty good thing? Small, perhaps, but good, nonetheless. On the other hand, suppose you chose not to--and let's even say you had good reasons for that. Again, all other things being equal, suppose I put a gun to your head and forced you to help her across the street. In that case, can you not see that your action is no longer "good" in the same sense is was when you did it of your own free will?

Actually, most atheists recognize this and try to use it as an argument against "Christian morality." They argue that we only do what is right out of fear of Hell, whereas they do what is right just because, and therefore, their morality is purer than ours. Most Christians would agree that if a person is only doing good to avoid Hell, then their "good" really isn't good after all. Do you agree or disagree with those atheists and Christians who make this argument?

It would seem God has a pretty high tolerance for evil.

"High" is a relative word, don't you think? How do you know His tolerance isn't actually very low, and in fact, the evil things He has let happen pale in comparison to the evil things He has not let happen? In other words, what is your frame of reference for deciding what is really bad evil?

And why would God (seemingly) go out of His way to save Hitler from the many attempts on his life. If a "holy' person had survived all those attempts, he/she would doubtless be a saint by now.

The "seemingly" is the fault of your problem here. Who said God saved Hitler's life? Why couldn't it just been the connection of events?

Isn't slavery is condoned by The Bible.

You've been around here long enough to know the answer to that. If we can get past that, then, can you see that moral slavery--leaving us pure automatons--would be more "evil" than letting us have free choice (and the consequences that go with it)?

In any case, you do realize that this whole conversation is self-defeating, right? The concept of evil only has any meaning if you presume God's existence. The problem of evil kills itself. Evil cannot exist if God does not, so to try to use evil to disprove God's existence only proves His existence.

[waynepii]

If God is all-knowing, He knows BEFORE someone is conceived how that person will turn out, what he/she will or will not do, and what that person's fate (heaven, hell, ... ) WILL be - no probability to it all, dead certainty.

Yes, I've not disputed that. I'm trying to get you to see the distinction between seeing what some WILL do and seeing what someone WOULD HAVE done. This is a basic distinction--it forms the basis of the whole argument for middle knowledge, actually (which, by the way, I don't follow, but that's another story). Do you see how if God prevented someone from doing something, then it is absurd to say they WILL do it?

I see the distinction, I do not see how it applies. True, what we actually DO may differ from we MIGHT HAVE done, but the only important thing is what it is that was we actually did. We only find out what we actually do when we in fact do it. God knows from the beginning what we are going to do.

If you or I made something that had even a high probability of maiming or killing someone (a bomb for instance) and our device did, in fact, cause the death or severe injury of another. We would be criminally responsible for the death or injury, even if it was not our intent to cause the death or injury to occur.

Hitler is just one example, God has unleashed a seemingly endless series of monsters on the human race. He knew exactly what each of them would do. How is He not complicit?

Because we have choice. If God prevented someone from doing evil and only let them do good, do you see how the entire notion of "good" is erased? Let me give you a very practical example. Suppose you see an old lady having trouble crossing the road. All other things being equal, if you choose to go lend her a hand, wouldn't you agree that you've done a pretty good thing? Small, perhaps, but good, nonetheless. On the other hand, suppose you chose not to--and let's even say you had good reasons for that. Again, all other things being equal, suppose I put a gun to your head and forced you to help her across the street. In that case, can you not see that your action is no longer "good" in the same sense is was when you did it of your own free will?

So the whole purpose of our existence is to be tested - and the results of the test is known before we are even a "twinkle in our dad's eye"?

Actually, most atheists recognize this and try to use it as an argument against "Christian morality." They argue that we only do what is right out of fear of Hell, whereas they do what is right just because, and therefore, their morality is purer than ours. Most Christians would agree that if a person is only doing good to avoid Hell, then their "good" really isn't good after all. Do you agree or disagree with those atheists and Christians who make this argument?

Some people "play by the rules" to avoid retribution, whether by God, civil authority, or others (presumably more powerful than they). Some people "do the right thing" because it IS the right thing to do. The ratio of Christians to atheists are essentially the same in each group.

It would seem God has a pretty high tolerance for evil.

"High" is a relative word, don't you think? How do you know His tolerance isn't actually very low, and in fact, the evil things He has let happen pale in comparison to the evil things He has not let happen? In other words, what is your frame of reference for deciding what is really bad evil?

And why would God (seemingly) go out of His way to save Hitler from the many attempts on his life. If a "holy' person had survived all those attempts, he/she would doubtless be a saint by now.

The "seemingly" is the fault of your problem here. Who said God saved Hitler's life? Why couldn't it just been the connection of events?

Isn't slavery is condoned by The Bible.

You've been around here long enough to know the answer to that. If we can get past that, then, can you see that moral slavery--leaving us pure automatons--would be more "evil" than letting us have free choice (and the consequences that go with it)?

I know what your answer is. What I have never understood is how you equate the fact that The Bible changes over time with the idea that it (The Bible) constitutes God's statement of an absolute morality. I'm not especially talking about the OT/NT differences, I'm talking about differences in versions of the NT. Consider 1 Tim 6:1, the New International Version says ...

All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered.

... but the King James Version has removed references to "slavery" ...

Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.

. And the NIV is not alone in appearing to endorse slavery, most English versions do so as well.

In any case, you do realize that this whole conversation is self-defeating, right? The concept of evil only has any meaning if you presume God's existence. The problem of evil kills itself. Evil cannot exist if God does not, so to try to use evil to disprove God's existence only proves His existence.

Do you mean the term "evil" is based on God (I would dispute this)? In that case, substitute "heinous" for "evil". Or are you claiming a given act can only be "evil" (or "heinous", or "wrong", or ... ) given the existence of God? THAT I strongly disagree with.

[DannyM]

God knows what we will do. Doesn't that mean He also knows whether we are going to change? Doesn't He know what we ultimately will do? In effect, doesn't He know NOW who will be saved and who will not? In which case, why does He have us play out our roles since He already knows the outcome? Can we really surprise Him?

No- we cannot surprise him. God knows everything bar nothing, if you know what I mean. God would logically have no need to "pray for us". And besides, since we all pray to God, him being the ultimate unmoved mover, the one capable of answering our prayers, if God *were* to pray for us, then wouldn't this be a further logical contradiction...since God would not logically pray to himself- and if he did, well he would have no need, as he would logically know the answer, nay, he would be the one *performing* his answer. Am I getting bogged down here?

Dan

[waynepii]

I'm sorry, I had to run before I completed my previous reply and didn't get a chance to respond to the following points until now.

It would seem God has a pretty high tolerance for evil.

"High" is a relative word, don't you think? How do you know His tolerance isn't actually very low, and in fact, the evil things He has let happen pale in comparison to the evil things He has not let happen? In other words, what is your frame of reference for deciding what is really bad evil?

My comment was facetious and not meant to engender discussion - sorry.

And why would God (seemingly) go out of His way to save Hitler from the many attempts on his life. If a "holy' person had survived all those attempts, he/she would doubtless be a saint by now.

The "seemingly" is the fault of your problem here. Who said God saved Hitler's life? Why couldn't it just been the connection of events?

I don't think He saved Hitler's life, my point was that if someone else (a televangelist, or a "saved" Christian perhaps) had survived the number and types of attempts on his or her life that Hitler did, it would probably be considered the result of God's intervention, if not an outright miracle.