Does Divine foreknowledge negate free will?

[EduChris]

In Islam, Allah is said to have taken his pen and begun to write. Each person's life has been scripted out in precise, exact detail before the world was created. Some Christians even have similar views of the God of the Bible (although I and many other Christians do not share that view).

Anyway, the question is, If God has scripted every detail of our lives before we were even born, can we still have free will?

I do not wish to debate whether we actually have free will, or whether free will is possible in our physical universe. The question at hand is simply whether free will--freedom of choice, freedom to do otherwise--makes any sense at all if our lives have been scripted by the Deity before we were born.

[EduChris]

...Strictly speaking, it's impossible for you to know it now by most definitions of the word 'know'. Not sure how seeing a tape of what you did yesterday that was recorded the day before would make that any different...Appearances are irrelevant to objective reality. Appearing to have free will doesn't mean you do, and appearing to not have it doesn't mean you don't.

Yes we cannot know in an objective sense. All we have is our perceptions combined with faith. The term I've heard is, "faith seeking understanding."

...foreknowledge only doesn't negate free will if God has no interference with the actions being foreknown...

That's the "if" that troubles me. I'm not sure how that "if" makes sense.

...Firstly there's no way of telling that isn't really the case anyways. Memory is not particularly reliable even at the best at times. It wouldn't be a complete stretch to think of it as being completely fabricated...

True. Here is where my "faith" tells me that God is truth, and God's word is truth. But even here, I have to interpret God's word--it doesn't interpret itself, though I believe God can help people to understand more than they can articulate.

...I simply view God as being an infinitely better author...

And in my view, God is the playwright and we are the actors and directors and producers; we've been given the creative responsibility to finish the play in keeping with what we have learned about the author.

...Does being an illusion make things less important to us as individuals?...Not objectively existing in a material manner would not likely make my life any less important to me.

Again I can only point to my faith that Jesus was the most real person who ever lived, and he endured real suffering.

[ChaosBorders]

...foreknowledge only doesn't negate free will if God has no interference with the actions being foreknown...

That's the "if" that troubles me. I'm not sure how that "if" makes sense.

That's kind of the point. Few, if any, Christians or Muslims believe in a God that did not interfere in some way. So the fact you can theoretically have an omniscient being and free will simultaneously is pretty much irrelevant.

True. Here is where my "faith" tells me that God is truth, and God's word is truth. But even here, I have to interpret God's word--it doesn't interpret itself, though I believe God can help people to understand more than they can articulate.

Personally I go more with God being truth, but his 'word' not necessarily being truth in the sense we typically use the word.

And in my view, God is the playwright and we are the actors and directors and producers; we've been given the creative responsibility to finish the play in keeping with what we have learned about the author.

And if everyone goes on strike?

...Does being an illusion make things less important to us as individuals?...Not objectively existing in a material manner would not likely make my life any less important to me.

Again I can only point to my faith that Jesus was the most real person who ever lived, and he endured real suffering.

My point is that, from the perspective of the person suffering, is there really any difference between it being real and illusory? Or perhaps more accurately, given the nature of pain, aren't they really the same thing?

[Goat]

Remember though that foreknowledge only doesn't negate free will if God has no interference with the actions being foreknown. The mere act of creation, knowing what will result from it, is pretty massive interference, in which case you would be correct that there would be no free will regarding subsequent events.

I disagree. The fact the future is 'written in stone' is enough of a fact to say that things are totally deterministic, rather than having 'free will'.

Then, you have the claim that in addition to knowing the future, God created thing to begin with. In other words, he knew the results of what he would create even before the act of creation happened.

[ChaosBorders]

I disagree. The fact the future is 'written in stone' is enough of a fact to say that things are totally deterministic, rather than having 'free will'.

If things were not deterministic before being observed, it makes no difference what point in time the observation came from as long the observer did not interfere the actions or anything leading up to the actions. There is a complete disconnect between the observer and the actions taking place.

Then, you have the claim that in addition to knowing the future, God created thing to begin with. In other words, he knew the results of what he would create even before the act of creation happened.

Which is why the above exception is generally irrelevant when talking about God.

[LiamOS]

There is a complete disconnect between the observer and the actions taking place.

What traits does an observer entail, and how are you defining observation?

[ChaosBorders]

There is a complete disconnect between the observer and the actions taking place.

What traits does an observer entail, and how are you defining observation?

Knowledge of the event without any interaction whatsoever. (This is not like quantum physics. The observer is presumed a supernatural entity who has no need of physical interaction with the event in any way of any kind).

[LiamOS]

Knowledge of the event without any interaction whatsoever. (This is not like quantum physics. The observer is presumed a supernatural entity who has no need of physical interaction with the event in any way of any kind).

The fact that the future could be known means that the universe is deterministic.
From there, the cause is responsible. Presumably, the cause and the observing entity are the same.

An observer who has never interacted(even during creation) with the universe has no bearing on the universe, but presuming that said entity can know everything over all time, free will cannot exist.

[ChaosBorders]

Knowledge of the event without any interaction whatsoever. (This is not like quantum physics. The observer is presumed a supernatural entity who has no need of physical interaction with the event in any way of any kind).

The fact that the future could be known means that the universe is deterministic.
From there, the cause is responsible. Presumably, the cause and the observing entity are the same.

And if the observing entity is not the cause, nor at any point interacted, how does it have any effect whatsoever on whether there is free will? It seems to me a complete non sequitur.

An observer who has never interacted(even during creation) with the universe has no bearing on the universe, but presuming that said entity can know everything over all time, free will cannot exist.

Why not? If it has imposed neither condition nor restraint upon the actors, but merely knows ahead of time which of the possibilities those actors will ultimately choose, how has it violated their free will?

Keep in mind that this is ignoring little things like the nature of reality making free will an absurdity to begin with. The question is basically, if somehow there existed free will to begin with, how does adding an omniscient being into the mix negate that if the being never in any way interacts or interferes with that freedom?

I think this exception is highly hypothetical given that the generally believed nature of God makes it moot and given the generally believed nature of reality makes it moot. But given the OP I feel it is worth mentioning and defending until someone can demonstrate that mere foreknowledge without any interaction somehow imposes a constraint or restriction on the actions of otherwise free beings.

[EduChris]

The fact that the future could be known means that the universe is deterministic.
From there, the cause is responsible. Presumably, the cause and the observing entity are the same.

And if the observing entity is not the cause, nor at any point interacted, how does it have any effect whatsoever on whether there is free will? It seems to me a complete non sequitur.

In my scenario God is the cause of all future possibilities, and God is also the observer.

God, however, is only indirectly the cause of the future realities, since free will implies that the free agents choose from among the available possibilities at any given moment.

[ChaosBorders]

In my scenario God is the cause of all future possibilities, and God is also the observer.

This one only works though if there are no further constraints on those possibilities. Given the nature of physical reality, by both knowing and purposefully limiting the specific possibilities to what they are, God is violating the free will of the actors. I also don't think if you're going from a Biblical perspective God has in any way had a non-interference policy.