The possibility of Omniscience and Free Will

[mattrose]

My thought exactly! Where is the moral problem with God knowing what I would choose?

It would depend on WHY God knows our future free choices.

One possibility is that God let history play out (with His involvement, of course) completely just before what we call 'the beginning.' During this trial run, God didn't know what free agents would do, but He ended up satisfied by the outcomes and decided to rewind the tape and start over. It was like God watching a movie for a second time, only this time He knew everything that would happen.

A second possibility, of course, eliminates the '2nd take' idea but at the price of determinism. God knows the future choices that we make because He determines them.

Now, the problem with the first view is that its seeming purpose (to eliminate the supposed problem of God NOT knowing the future) isn't really dealt with. It just posits a time in the past when God wasn't omniscient and, neatly, assures us that that time is long since gone. I don't think anyone who thinks through such a view would remain committed to it.

And the problem with the second possibility... determinism... is obvious.

Of course, one might object that there is a 3rd option... namely, that God exists outside of time. To my mind, this view is actually just a different way of saying either 1 or 2... doesn't make actual sense... and isn't biblical anyways.

In my conversations, I have yet to explain open theism to anyone that didn't respond "that makes sense" or "I think that's what I already thought." The only people I've encountered that boldly and absolutely reject open theism are people that do not really understand the position. The only 'legitimate' critique I've heard is the question of how to explain a small number of prophecies that are difficult for the open theist model.

[mattrose]

Let me explain why your thinking is flawed. If the only real choice is the one you picked, then there is no free will, because God must have known that choice beforehand. Free will requires that all your possible choices be real.

Once again, you're just not really understanding my view. I agree with you that the other choices are REAL possibilities. I agree that, in such cases, God didn't know what our choice would be beforehand. I adhere to libertarian free will. I believe that free will involves the choice to do otherwise. Where I DISAGREE with you is that the alternative choices that I end up not making exist in some parallel (real) universe somewhere. They existed as real possibilities, not real actualities.

The first underlined part is exactly correct. If He didn't preordain all the possibilities, then God is not omniscient, omnipotent or immanent. The second underlined part is flawed because it is stuck in the physical. All the preordaining occurs in eternity, which is spiritual, not physical.
kenblogton

Okay, so now I'm understanding yet ANOTHER layer of your unique viewpoint. Alternative/parallel universes exist... but not in the physical realm... only in the spiritual realm (God's mind?). So, again, I'm left wondering how your view is different from open theism to any significant degree. What open theist would take issue with the fact that all of the possibilities are known in the mind of God? In the end, both you and open theists agree that God knows ALL the possibilities, but not which possibilities will become a reality so far as they concern the decisions of free agents.

[steve7150]

The moral problem is that God is not only omniscient, He is also creator. So if He made you knowing in advance that you'd choose something sinful, that is immoral.










Even if OT is true God knows man will very likely sin.
Not only does God know man may sin but God made mans DNA and God is omniscient therefore God knows that either Adam and Eve would sin or one of their descendents would.
If man has freewill then out of 50 billion people who came after Adam, the chances of no one sinning is zero.

[mattrose]

I agree that it is no blemish on God's character that He knew the likelihood that humanity would fall into sin.

What is problematic is if we never genuinely have the ability to do otherwise.

[steve7150]

I agree that it is no blemish on God's character that He knew the likelihood that humanity would fall into sin.

What is problematic is if we never genuinely have the ability to do otherwise.







Would anyone disagree that if a human had the ability to kill every person on earth except for 8 souls and did, we would classify him on a similar level with Hitler?
Yet because God did it we accept that there is a greater good (dreaded two words) yes a greater good that makes it morally acceptable that God did this. As we know there are other actions carried out by God, which had these same actions been carried out by a human we would immediately classify it as murder.

So sometimes we accept that there can be a different standard for judging God's actions. There is precedence that sometimes God's plan overrides mans understanding of what sin or missing the mark is. God's will is the mark itself, so if God's plan extends further and He decides it is necessary for man to experience evil for an age, then that is his will or his mark. It is not sin.

[mattrose]

Would anyone disagree that if a human had the ability to kill every person on earth except for 8 souls and did, we would classify him on a similar level with Hitler?
Yet because God did it we accept that there is a greater good (dreaded two words) yes a greater good that makes it morally acceptable that God did this. As we know there are other actions carried out by God, which had these same actions been carried out by a human we would immediately classify it as murder.

So sometimes we accept that there can be a different standard for judging God's actions. There is precedence that sometimes God's plan overrides mans understanding of what sin or missing the mark is. God will is the mark itself, so if God's plan extends further and He decides it is necessary for man to experience evil for an age, then that is his will or his mark. It is not sin.

Steve... that is a crazy comparison in my opinion! There's a huge difference between God punishing people because they chose to be incredibly evil (as in the flood) and God punishing people because he made them to be incredibly evil! That's not even apples-n-oranges... it's apples and orangutans!

[steve7150]

Steve... that is a crazy comparison in my opinion! There's a huge difference between God punishing people because they chose to be incredibly evil (as in the flood) and God punishing punishing people because he made them to be incredibly evil! That's not even apples-n-oranges... it's apples and orangutans










I never said or implied that God made man incredibly evil or even evil at all. All i ever said is that i think man was made spiritually immature and highly susceptible to missing the mark. So susceptible that the events in the garden may have been inevitable.

[kenblogton]

Reply to mattrose
Once again, you're just not really understanding my view. I agree with you that the other choices are REAL possibilities. I agree that, in such cases, God didn't know what our choice would be beforehand. I adhere to libertarian free will. I believe that free will involves the choice to do otherwise. Where I DISAGREE with you is that the alternative choices that I end up not making exist in some parallel (real) universe somewhere. They existed as real possibilities, not real actualities.
If the only choice that really exists is the one we make; if the other possibilities are not real, then we do not have free will. Where did the choice that we actually do make exist before we made the choice?
I believe all our possible choices are real in eternity, not in some parallel physical universe.
kenblogton

[steve]

Ken,

You seem to consistently speak as if individual "choices" are "things" which (like all things) exist in some objective reality. There may be some confusion between using the word "choice" as a synonym for "the thing chosen" (as when speaking of my home, as one of many that might have been chosen, I could say, "Though I looked at several other places, this house was my choice"), on the one hand, and using "choice" to mean "the ability to choose," or "the act of choosing," on the other.

It seems to me that, in a discussion such as this one, "choice" is not a thing, but an action. By definition, a choice is made among alternative possibilities—one of which is realized by having been chosen, whereas all the alternatives go unrealized by their having been passed over. Thus, the choice we make is an action that actually occurs, and thus enters the realm of reality. Alternative courses that are not chosen never occur, and, as a result, never exist in any real world.

[kenblogton]

Reply to steve
It seems to me that, in a discussion such as this one, "choice" is not a thing, but an action. By definition, a choice is made among alternative possibilities—one of which is realized by having been chosen, whereas all the alternatives go unrealized by their having been passed over. Thus, the choice we make is an action that actually occurs, and thus enters the realm of reality. Alternative courses that are not chosen never occur, and, as a result, never exist in any real world.
The choice we make that ends up as an action is real to God from Creation - long before it occurs. If it isn't, God is not omniscient. As well, all our other possible choices - all our possible actions - must also be real, or we don't have free will. All our possible, including all our actual, choices/actions are real in eternity - in God's Mind.
kenblogton