[cchrisr]

simply put, has God given mankind volition/free will?
secondly, how is God omniscient? i have read the other thread on omniscient, but still, how is God omniscient? i have heard a few different theories on this one: (note: forgive me for the use of temporal adjectives because i am not able to fathom nor describe this without them)
1) God exists outside of time (as being that he created it) and therefore knows all things past, present, and future.
2) God does not know the future for it has not yet come into being yet. (open theism)
3) God is not omniscient.
4) God knows all because he knows all possibilities and probabilites of the future.

and thirdly, if God has given man free will & God knows all things, is that not a contradiction?

please no cognitive dissonance.

pax et gratia,

[MisterAgreeable]

I guess I'm not sure I see the logical inconsistency you find in option #1. (Which is the view I hold.)

What's the conflict with being free, but having God know ahead of time what we will do?

[JerryLove]

1. is consistant, except it means no free will.

Similarly, God lacks free will as all his decisions are made (since thiere is no future in which he can make them).

[Chrysostom]

(cchrisr) simply put, has God given mankind volition/free will?

(Me) Not as the libertarians see it, but yes He has.



(cchrisr) secondly, how is God omniscient? i have read the other thread on omniscient, but still, how is God omniscient? i have heard a few different theories on this one: (note: forgive me for the use of temporal adjectives because i am not able to fathom nor describe this without them)

(Me) Because God has decreed whatsoever comes to pass, and His decree is immutable. Therefore, He is certain of everything that will come to pass.




(cchrisr) and thirdly, if God has given man free will & God knows all things, is that not a contradiction?

(Me) It means that man does not have what philosophers call libertarian freewill. However, there is no reason to think that we have that kind of freedom.

[Chrysostom]

(JerryLove) Similarly, God lacks free will as all his decisions are made (since thiere is no future in which he can make them).

(Me) I will provide exactly the same objection as I did last time: You are assuming that God is a creature. You are assuming that God is completely bound to time in His decisions and actions. However, if God is not completely bound to time in His decisions and actions, this argument is irrelevant, because His decree regards only the created order, and thus only those actions occurring within time; His foreknowledge is based on His decree; therefore, as He is not limited to time, He can be truly free.

[ApparentlyNothing]

Originally Posted by cchrisr

if God has given man free will & God knows all things, is that not a contradiction?

No, its not........

Were you expecting something else? What your probably thinking about is predestination, not God's omniscience. I can think to myself, the next few words I type are completely by my will. Obviously, if I hadnt typed them, then God wouldnt have struck me down or anything. It was by my free will...I chose to type them. But God knew what my decision was gonna be, but that doesnt mean he limited them or made me choose to type them......If I choose to sin, God would never MAKE me sin because God is completely good. He would never force on me the consequences of sin. But He still knows I am going to beforehand.

Along the lines of predestination..... I think God has chosen our future and that He has plans for us. I cant even begin to fathom how that is possible if I have free will. I'm sure I woulda screwed it all up a million times by now, so I cant possibly understand. Do I need to? No. I simply accept the fact that God knows all and is all powerful, thus anything He wants happens. If that means contradictory things can happen at the same time....it'll happen. He cant be bound by our limited philosophies on His existence. I cant say, "Hey God, you cant do that!" 'cause He can! He's too big for us to understand...and I'm personally thankful for that.

This is all kinda long the lines of the two "Matrix" movies. In the first one, theres a part where Neo is at the Oracle, and she says to him, "Oh, and dont worry about the vase." And Neo says, "What vase?" and turns around to look for it.....knocking over the vase and breaking it. Then the Oracle says, "What'll really get your noodle going is, would you have knocked it over if I hadnt have told you?" Now thats something to really get deep about......

(btw sorry if I butchered the quote!)

[cchrisr]

to answer all the questions of how can God be omniscient and man have free-will be a contradiction:
if there is an omniscient being, the free-willed creature cannot do anything that the omniscient did not already know. therefore the free-will is merely an illusion. i can expound it further if you would like, but i believe the premises presented are sufficient to prove that the free-will was merely an illusion (and therefore non-existent).

here is one proposed theory on the paradox that a friend of mine gave me (btw, to my knowledge he is a nonchristian). i take no responsibility for grammar mistakes or alternative views that may be offensive to someone (hopefully not, though). and of course, i claim no responsibility for thinking and writing this (although i think it is really cool):
(note: qm = quantum mechanics...a very interesting field of study)
(do i make enough parenthetical remarks {or just a wee bit too much?})
-------------------------------
This is the general freewill vs. destiny paradox that many bring up. But if you can try and step outside the human experience for a bit, and try to get a "big cosmic picture" there might not be one. It takes of bit of mental stretching and some non-conformist thinking, so humor me... Now of the disclaimer: This is a meta-physical discussion and I offer no evidence of anything! I just ask that according to the definitions I set up, that the conclusions be at least possible. Possible in the sense that it's likelihood is not zero. So with that lets suspend our presuppositions for a bit...

Close you eyes and imagine a truly eternal Being, who always was/is/will be "before" time or spacial dimension. (Try to use a bit of intuition here, because words start to fail. What does "before" mean in the absence of time? Does the singular "Being" fit better than "Beings" or is it somewhere inbetween?) This "Being" basically just "is". It's all-knowing because it encompasses "all". It's is a pure consciousness which touches all and is through all. In fact, I'm going to define the word "all" as equating to this consciousness. But is it reasonable to suggest this being would be all powerful? I could just define it as such, but I think I might have a better argument.

Now, we have quasi-evidence from more than one intereptation of quantum mechanics that our present universe might react to this thing we call "consciousness". Even in the "many worlds" intereptation the universe still reacts by bifurcating at each thermodynamically irreversible conscious measurement. We are not so sure what consciousness is, of course, but you know darn well when you've got it. In a very limited sense, the very act of a conscious creature observing something "wills" that something, by the type of measurement chosen, into differing states of representation (wave or particle in the simple case). Thus the phrase, "Consciousness creates reality." This is quite a valid interpretation of QM and contradicts nothing.

Now, I will make a jump here and take this general idea to an ultimate extreme. It could be reasonable to suggest that this relationship might be but a limited reflection of a more encompassing one. If such a Being is "all", then a simple act of will would carry with it power. Power to create, change, destroy, mold, remold, etc., everything. Because "everything" is precisely what this consciousness is, its will has the ultimate power to shape its reality.

Now comes the hard part. What would motivate such an eternal, powerful, and creative Being which just "is" to do anything? Or put it this way, "What would you do if you were such a timeless being," where nothing "is" but you? Kind of a boring thought, huh? Sure, you could will anything into existence, but what's the point? How interesting would that be? It would be just another aspect of yourself... And you'd know is properties ahead of its creation. Yawn...

I can only think of one thing that would actually motivate you to use the power of will at your disposal. Create creatures of freewill like yourself. Why? Because the very essence of having a freewilled creature is not to know what such creatures might do. If it was known, then how different would such creatures be from a very complicated toy. Now, this doesn't necessarily mean that such a Being would violate his all knowing properties either. One can still have the potential power to know or do something, but choose not to exercise it. It would be a decision to "look the other way" so as to not destroy your freewilled creature. I don't mean to suggest that humans are somehow special, just that the universe itself might be a gigantic high efficiency "machine" to spit out freewilled creatures. And for that matter there could be uncounted numbers of different universes. All with variations on a theme. All cranking away under slightly different rules. Each with untold numbers of evolutionary processed creatures. Each with magnitudes of differing levels of copiousness. By the way, any Christian who claims evolution is incompatible with Christianity is of the same mind as Galileo's persecutors, just plain wrong. They are products of the past and have never learned anything from history.
--------------------

~~christopher

[ApparentlyNothing]

Hmm....very interesting theory..... I think that maybe it could be possible that God sorta "looks the other way" to give us free will..... Im not too sure though. I completely agree that God would create free willed beings because whats the point in making a person love you? Thats not love at all..... One sign of true love is to give a person the option to deny your love...... Yet at the same time, I know that He is omniscient. I know that He knows everything I'm gonna do before I do it.....but I still know I have free will...... hmmmmm....Im interested in finding out what others have to say....

[MisterAgreeable]

Originally Posted by cchrisr

to answer all the questions of how can God be omniscient and man have free-will be a contradiction:
if there is an omniscient being, the free-willed creature cannot do anything that the omniscient did not already know. therefore the free-will is merely an illusion. i can expound it further if you would like, but i believe the premises presented are sufficient to prove that the free-will was merely an illusion (and therefore non-existent).

Your argument appears to look like this:
1. God knows the future
2. Man is free only if he can do that which God does not know he will do
3. Therefore, either man is not free or God is not all-knowing.

The problem here is #2, though. How do you justify it? How much does your argument differ from this:
1. Man cannot fly
2. Man is free only if he can fly
3. Therefore, either man is not free or man can fly

In other words, are you saying that anytime you want to do the impossible it means you don't have free will?

By the way, your friend's open theism theory seem to contain its fair share of questionable science. Think he'd care to offer an definition of a "thermodynamically irreversible conscious measurement?"

[cchrisr]

Originally Posted by MisterAgreeable

Your argument appears to look like this:
1. God knows the future
2. Man is free only if he can do that which God does not know he will do
3. Therefore, either man is not free or God is not all-knowing.

The problem here is #2, though. How do you justify it? How much does your argument differ from this:
1. Man cannot fly
2. Man is free only if he can fly
3. Therefore, either man is not free or man can fly

nay, the argument as i see goes like this:
1. God is omniscient
2. man has free will
3. because God is omniscient, he already knows man's decisions
4. because of that, man cannot do anything that is not already inescapably known
5. therefore, man's "free will" is only an illusion because if he made a decision which God did not already know, then God would not be omniscient.

Originally Posted by MisterAgreeable

By the way, your friend's open theism theory seem to contain its fair share of questionable science. Think he'd care to offer an definition of a "thermodynamically irreversible conscious measurement?"

i don't think that is open theism. to my knowledge, open theism stated that the future is unknowable. my friend had said that God chooses not to know the future. slightly different.
as far as the definition, the context in which he used it was to involve other theories (ie parallel universes) and not remain in the more generally accepted theory (single universe--no parallels).

[Chrysostom]

(cchrisr) By the way, any Christian who claims evolution is incompatible with Christianity is of the same mind as Galileo's persecutors, just plain wrong. They are products of the past and have never learned anything from history.

(Me) Please don't make unqualified insults. Back up your statements. If you would like to debate the Bible's teaching on creation, I would be happy to do it in either the Apologetics or Theology forum. I will forcefully contend for the thesis that the Bible's teaching on creation is completely incompatible with the evolutionary hypotheses of modern science.

[Chrysostom]

(cchrisr) i don't think that is open theism. to my knowledge, open theism stated that the future is unknowable. my friend had said that God chooses not to know the future. slightly different.

(Me) I'm not trying to get in on the debate -- I'm just trying to clarify a formal point. Various open theists hold different views -- some believe that the future is unknowable because God is solely temporal and the future is yet non-existent. Others believe that God could know the future, but chooses not to do so. Still others believe that God cannot know the future choices of free individuals. They are all variations on one theme, and basically reduce to the same idea (though with varying degrees of sophistication). Your friend's view, then, is Open Theism. It is a dangerous heresy. Guard against it, my friend.

[MisterAgreeable]

cchrisr-

I guess maybe the connection with your friend's view is that he's sort of applying Heisenberg's uncertainty principle to God. When we make an observation on the subatomic level, (the location of a photon, for instance,) it just moved from the realm of a probability distribution to a real-life certainty. Applied similarly, when God knows the future, it's no longer probabilistic - it's fatalistic.

I think the key to this is that God isn't bound to time like humans are. He created time, and views all of existence from beginning to end as you and I would view a painting.

I don't think ancient Hebrews were particularly accomplished philosophers, so it's interesting that their view of God is so logically consistent. To have created time itself, a God would not Himself be bound to time. Such a God, therefore, would not change throughout time. To know the future means you will not learn from (or be changed by) the present and future as it is happening, which would require changelessness. I like that consistency, though I must admit it leaves human free will in a bind.

I think Gordon Clark would have said "Man indeed has no free will. Next question." I like Van Til a lot better, and his answer was "That all things in history are determined by God must always seem, at first sight, to contradict the genuineness of my choice." You'd think after that he'd offer the answer but he really doesn't. Van Til wasn't shy about declaring these issues a mystery and moving on from there.

So how do I deal with it? Well, for one, I think it's fine to say that for every choice I have, I will only choose one option. (Unless you believe in, what is it, the level-4 multiverse?) Does God think that there's a 99% chance of me making decision A, and 1% for decision B? Well, no, because God doesn't view things temporally. He won't be surprised that I chose option B, even if all of my friends would be.

If your logic proves that we can't surprise God, I'm fine with that. Even if there's a still a conflict with free will, I think that perhaps it's God's omniscience itself which removes any conflict.

I know what will happen if I put a greyhound and a rabbit in a room together. I don't force them to do anything, but I understand their nature. Most human issues are more subtle than that, but God knows the subtleties utterly, and can predict what humans will do with certainty. That doesn't mean he forces our actions, but He understands us perfectly and arranges things so that His will is done, both with and against our will, and with and against nature.

[JerryLove]

I will provide exactly the same objection as I did last time: You are assuming that God is a creature. You are assuming that God is completely bound to time in His decisions and actions. However, if God is not completely bound to time in His decisions and actions, this argument is irrelevant, because His decree regards only the created order, and thus only those actions occurring within time; His foreknowledge is based on His decree; therefore, as He is not limited to time, He can be truly free.

And in doing so, you completely ignore the non-temporal nature of my comment. God = outside fo time, outside of time = no future, no future = no future decisions... ergo all decisions are already made, or there are no decisions at all.

Inside time God = know future, know future = future static, future static = no decisions or all decisions made before they occur.

I can think to myself, the next few words I type are completely by my will. Obviously, if I hadnt typed them, then God wouldnt have struck me down or anything.

That means you have will (the ability to decide for yourself), but it does not establish that you are free. For the future to be fixed, it must be just like the past. Do you have free will to choose what you will eat yesterday? No, because those choices are made. Similarly, for the future to be knowable, it must be just as fixed as the past... making it, if not preordaned, then at minimum entirely determanlistice (giving you as much free will as a calculator).

Along the lines of predestination..... I think God has chosen our future and that He has plans for us. I cant even begin to fathom how that is possible if I have free will. I'm sure I woulda screwed it all up a million times by now, so I cant possibly understand.

Simple; if I want a calculator to conclude 4, I just ask it 2+2... if all your responses are entirely determanlistice, than a sufficient mind with sufficient data could cause most any result by manipulating input.

This is all kinda long the lines of the two "Matrix" movies. In the first one, theres a part where Neo is at the Oracle, and she says to him, "Oh, and dont worry about the vase." And Neo says, "What vase?" and turns around to look for it.....knocking over the vase and breaking it. Then the Oracle says, "What'll really get your noodle going is, would you have knocked it over if I hadnt have told you?" Now thats something to really get deep about......

The second Matrix is more in-line with the problem... "You've already made the decisions, now you are just trying to understand why". The approach taken by Matrix is that people (and therefore the universe) are entirely determalistic... that they have choice, but that no choice is fre... it is the inevitable result of the person making the choice and the influences upon him.

here is one proposed theory on the paradox that a friend of mine gave me

Let me boil his theory down for you.

The universe is quanta.
Quanta respond to the observer.
God observes all.
The universe responds to God.

along with some comments about time that more-or-less amount to "time is just like space".

The problem is that he has addressed why and through what mechanism, without dealing with the meta-quantum problem of choice at all.

[Chrysostom]

(Previous) I will provide exactly the same objection as I did last time: You are assuming that God is a creature. You are assuming that God is completely bound to time in His decisions and actions. However, if God is not completely bound to time in His decisions and actions, this argument is irrelevant, because His decree regards only the created order, and thus only those actions occurring within time; His foreknowledge is based on His decree; therefore, as He is not limited to time, He can be truly free.

(JerryLove) And in doing so, you completely ignore the non-temporal nature of my comment. God = outside fo time, outside of time = no future, no future = no future decisions... ergo all decisions are already made, or there are no decisions at all.

(Me) "Already made" assumes a temporal nature to decision-making!