Does God "CHOOSE" not to know the future?

[Neo Deist]

Hello all! It's been awhile since I've posted on here but, as some of you know I have a JW friend that I visit with every week. The past couple of weeks we've been discussing how God can choose not to know the future. He (my friend) says that it is his belief that God didn't know Adam was going to sin, nor did He know that satan was going to tempt them. My friend explained that, "if God knows what I'm going to do tomorrow at 6:00, then I don't have free will because God knows I'm going to do it." I tried to explain that God knows the choice he (my friend) is going to make, but he didn't understand that. What are your beliefs/understandings/opinions on this? I believe God knows everything and does not choose not to know.

I believe in God based on my personal observations of nature. I see design and purpose, not randomness. Beyond that, anything and everything is pure speculation by us humans. As to what God can or can't do, does or doesn't do, etc., we can't prove any of it and it all boils down to opinions.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

Take Abraham and Isaac for instance, people use that to say God chooses not to know because God said, "now I know".

Genesis 22:12 (ESV Strong's) 12 He said, “Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.”

Think about this, if God chose not to know Abraham would sacrifice Isaac, why didn't He let him complete the sacrifice? I mean, Abraham raised his hand like he was going to kill Isaac, but if God didn't know he would do it, when Abraham raised his hand and just about to bring it down, he could have thought, "I can't do this, I'm not killing my only son". So how did God know he was really going to kill Isaac? God had to foreknow Abraham was going to do it. If He didn't know, He would have had to let him kill Isaac and then bring him back to life.

 

[McBell]

I have to agree with dust1n on this one. I did the same argument years ago on another board.

Perhaps this will help. If it 'can be known' whether I will choose to eat an apple or an orange for lunch tomorrow, then how can I possibly have free will to change my mind or choose freely tomorrow at lunch.

1. Today at 1:00 I ask God what I will choose to eat for lunch tomorrow.
2. God knows ahead of my actually making the choice what my choice will be because he is all knowing.
3. God can tell me what my choice will be, because he is all powerful.
4. Therefore at 1:05 today God tells me he sees that I will choose to eat an apple at noon tomorrow.
5. its 1:06 pm - can I still exercise free will and change my mind and eat an orange tomorrow?

It's not so much god knowing that limits my free will, its that it CAN be known that suggests a deterministic universe - therefore no real free will.

You are changing the argument.
In your example god directly intervenes and influences your decision.

 

[McBell]

"If god is all knowing then god knows every outcome for every choice you could possibly make.
That he knows which choice you will make has absolutely no bearing on your free will to make said choice."

That he knows which I choice does have no bearing. In order for him to know, the future my necessarily be determined. It matters not that God knows all the choices I could "possibly make" because if God already knows with certainty which choice I will make, it is impossible for me to make any other choice, because for it to be possible for God to know with certainty, the future is certain.

If the future was uncertain, how can God have any certainty? If the future is certain, do how are ever in a state of free will? How are we free in this scenario? What does that look like?

You keep ignoring the fact that free will is the ability to choose without coercion.
Where has god coerced you?

I'm sorry, how so? What options are there besides eating the broccoli and not eating the broccoli?
It's assumed God knows whether I'm going to eat the broccoli or not per the OP. Either I'm going to eat or I'm not going to eat it. Is this not the case? Is there some other option between doing something and not doing something?

your false dichotomy is in if god is all knowing then this if god is not all knowing then that.

 

[McBell]

Truth.

You really should look up the definition of the word "coercion"

 

[dust1n]

You keep ignoring the fact that free will is the ability to choose without coercion.
Where has god coerced you?

I understand free will to be:

"The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one’s own discretion."

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/free-will

What coercion is necessary?

your false dichotomy is in if god is all knowing then this if god is not all knowing then that.

It isn't. My premise is that God is all knowing. This is the assumption that God exist and that he knows all things.

Given that God exists and knows all things, is a premise, and not one that I even agree to, but can consider the implications of if need be. Which is why I gave the scenario I did. It's no more than a false dichotomy than saying if a man is married, he isn't a bachelor, and if he is not married, he is a bachelor.

 

[Willamena]

You really should look up the definition of the word "coercion"

Truth is the coercive force of knowing.

 

[The Sparrow]

You are changing the argument.
In your example god directly intervenes and influences your decision.

In what way is he influencing my decision? In fact he need not tell me what he sees in my future. The fact that he 'could' tell me is the problem.

 

[McBell]

The fact that he 'could' tell me is the problem.

Please demonstrate this to be true

 

[The Sparrow]

Please demonstrate this to be true

Well, I gave a 5 step list of hypotheticals. Would you like to go through them 1 at a time and discuss where my thinking is flawed?

 

[McBell]

Well, I gave a 5 step list of hypotheticals. Would you like to go through them 1 at a time and discuss where my thinking is flawed?

You have not demonstrated how god knowing interferes with free will.
You simply declared it.

 

[Akivah]

And when talking about a being that is outside of time, the past is just as relevant as the future. Past and future are concepts that only apply to us linear beings. So looking back, now that you now how that sporting event last week came out, does that mean the players had no free will? Could they have chosen a different result?

I'm not sure I understand the objection.

It wasn't an objection, it was a question. According to my beliefs, G-d is outside of time, He knows past, present, and future. Past and future are constructs for us mortal people, but they are the same thing from G-d's perspective. Remember yesterday, when that thing happened to you and you made a choice? Well G-d knew about it before you made your decision. Did you have no freewill when making your choice? Was there only one possible way that it could have happened? Why didn't you make it come out differently than it did? Couldn't you have chosen to do something else?

I'm getting bored from this thread. So just answer and I'll call it a day.

 

[The Sparrow]

You have not demonstrated how god knowing interferes with free will.
You simply declared it.

So, you don't want to address the points I made in my hypothetical? You just want to blanket dismiss it?
How are we supposed to have a discussion then?

 

[Skwim]

In a general sense I could be ok with that, but in the specific scenario I listed, can you see the paradox it creates around #5?

Of course, because you've insisted that "choice has meaning. Fact of the matter is, one can do no different in the future because what one does in the future is determined by a whole slew of deterministic events that make anything else impossible. True choice turns out to be an illusion.

 

[The Sparrow]

Of course, because you've insisted that "choice has meaning. Fact of the matter is, one can do no different in the future because what one does in the future is determined by a whole slew of deterministic events that make anything else impossible. True choice turns out to be an illusion.

Aye, that is one solutions (probably the most accurate in terms of reality)

To avoid the paradox we must accept
There is no free will - god knows every choice we will ever make before we are even born, because they are all deterministic
or
there is free will and therefore gaps in what god CAN know. (but then god is not omniscient)
or
There is no god

I'm open to other options, if anyone has any.

 

[dust1n]

It wasn't an objection, it was a question. According to my beliefs, G-d is outside of time, He knows past, present, and future. Past and future are constructs for us mortal people, but they are the same thing from G-d's perspective. Remember yesterday, when that thing happened to you and you made a choice? Well G-d knew about it before you made your decision. Did you have no freewill when making your choice? Was there only one possible way that it could have happened? Why didn't you make it come out differently than it did? Couldn't you have chosen to do something else?

I'm getting bored from this thread. So just answer and I'll call it a day.

I mean, I don't understand what the question is ultimately trying to ask, as in, I'm not sure why or how God being "outside of time" or that the "past and future" not applying to God is suppose to make me reconsider the question.

To answer your questions, I'd argue no, that there was only one possible way for it happen, that the main reason it didn't come out differently than it did is because it would be impossible for it do so, and choosing something else would literally be a direct contradiction of God and is infallible knowledge.

To summarize:


Basic Argument for Theological Fatalism
(1)
Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]

Meaning, God supposedly knows everything.
(2)
If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]

The Principle of the Necessity of the Past is an assumption in logic that states if something was true in the past at that time, it was true in the past at all times. Unless there is some reason this premise is disagreeable, it's assumed to be true.
(3)
It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]

If God knows all, including a belief T held yesterday, and if something that is true in the past is always true in the past, then it always will be the case that God believed in T yesterday.
(4)
Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of “infallibility”]

By the definition of "infallibility", if God believed something, it must be true.
(5)
If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]

A bit more complicated to explain, but given that no one seems to contest this, it seems pretty apparent in logic. Basically, if a premise in an "if-statement" is necessary, then the "then" of that "if-statement" is also necessary.
(6)
So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]

Given that it always be the case that God believed in T yesterday, and because T must be true since God believes in it, AND since it follows that necessity for a premise means it's necessary there is necessity for it's conclusion, so it must necessary that T happens. In other words, it is true that T is still a true-statement of the past necessarily, because it is now-necessary that God believed in T.
(7)
If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of “necessary”]

"determined, existing, or happening by natural laws or predestination; inevitable."

If T is necessary, then not-T is impossible.
(8)
Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]

So given that if T is still true necessarily, and not-T is impossible, T is the only option available.
(9)
If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]

The Principle of Alternate Possibilities states that one cannot be morally responsible for an action if their was no other action available. An assumption, that has been handled in numerous ways.
(10)
Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]

Given that T is the only available option, and given that one is morally responsible for actions when alternative actions are available, than T is not produced by free will.



So given that 1.) God is all-knowing and infallible in that knowledge. 2.) That things that were true in past must still be true in the past. 3.) The definition of what it means to be infallible. 4.) Transfer of Necessity Principle. 5.) definition in logic in what it means to be necessary. 6.) and that responsibility can only be taken for actions when some other action is available to take.

With those 6 assumptions, it's logically valid that God's knowledge of the future and human free will are incompatible.

 

[McBell]

So, you don't want to address the points I made in my hypothetical? You just want to blanket dismiss it?
How are we supposed to have a discussion then?

I already pointed out you changed the argument.
Now you accuse me of not wanting discussion?
Sad really.

I have no interest in your strawman.
If you want to join the discussion at hand, please demonstrate how gods merely knowing interferes/prevents free will.
I shan't hold my breath.
Mainly because the other two in the thread claiming gods knowledge interferes/prevents free will have not been able to demonstrate it either.

Perhaps you will actually give it a shot?
Or are you stuck on your strawman?

 

[The Sparrow]

I already pointed out you changed the argument.
Now you accuse me of not wanting discussion?
Sad really.

Yes, you pointed out a concern with the scenario, then I responded with reasoning how it didn't actually change the outcome. Now you seem to be dismissing that with out actually addressing my statements.

I have no interest in your strawman.

Strawman? In what way am I employing the strawman fallacy?

If you want to join the discussion at hand, please demonstrate how gods merely knowing interferes/prevents free will.
I shan't hold my breath.
Mainly because the other two in the thread claiming gods knowledge interferes/prevents free will have not been able to demonstrate it either.

If you'd actually read my statements you'd see its not specifically that god knows, its that it CAN BE KNOWN. Its that a fact has has become established in my chronological frame of reference. The fact is what choice I will make in 23 hours, BEFORE I have actually made the choice.
[/quote]

Perhaps you will actually give it a shot?
Or are you stuck on your strawman?

That is what I am trying to do. It is telling that you are resorting to global proclamations rather than dealing with the specifics of the scenario.

I'll try again.
It seems you are having issue with #4.

4. Therefore at 1:05 today God tells me he sees that I will choose to eat an apple at noon tomorrow.
5. its 1:06 pm - can I still exercise free will and change my mind and eat an orange tomorrow?

Let's modify it then.
4. Therefore at 1:05 today God writes down and seals in an envelope that I will choose to eat an apple at noon tomorrow. I do not open the envelope, but it exists now in my timeframe.
5. its 1:06 pm today - can I still exercise free will and change my mind and eat an orange tomorrow? Yes or no?

 

[Blastcat]

I believe that God willingly gave up his omniscience when he gave us free-will. If the future is determined, then we don't have free-will. And, if God knows what we will do in the future, then the future MUST be determined. Finally, if the future is determined and we don't actually have free-will, we can't be held responsible for our actions by God, unless God is actually unjust/unreasonable.

Just because the god gives itself partial amnesia doesn't mean free will exists. The world was created with all the choices DETERMINED, and then the god forgets the plan. But the plan is still there. The god had already DETERMINED everything ahead of time BEFORE it got... forgetful.

 

[Ultimatum]

. If the future is determined, then we don't have free-will.

Well this is utterly stupid.
If I know someone is going to sleep tonight, that doesn't mean they can't act in another way external to sleeping.

And, if God knows what we will do in the future, then the future MUST be determined. [/quote]

So I can determine you?