Foreknowledge and Free Will

[The Tanager]

I'm wondering what people here think of foreknowledge and free will. I've come across many people who feel that having knowledge of the future means that people cannot have free will. I don't see how that would necessarily be the case. I could (hypothetically, through time travel or whatever) know what your grandchildren will do on a certain date without actually making them make that choice. It would be more like me skipping ahead in watching a movie, rather than being the writer or director of the movie. But, often, people connect the two and believe that, if the future can be known that means one does not have control over their own life. What do you all think?

[ttruscott]

...

Timeless beings, however, see what the actors do at every point in one 'moment.' They watch the completed movie, but they aren't looking ahead to do so; they are just looking.

While I understand and accept the logic of this construct, I do not accept that it is meaningful to the Christian definitions. At some time there was a before creation and then there was an after creation, (unless the universe is eternal) and some choice on GOD's part, (unless HE has no free will).

The problem is hell. Apparently the Timeless ONES saw folk in hell before creation but chose to create them anyway...making HIM a monster which is contrary to other considerations.

So while I accept the philosophical construct, I do not accept its reality. I hope this is not too far off the topic,

Peace, Ted

[The Tanager]

While I understand and accept the logic of this construct, I do not accept that it is meaningful to the Christian definitions. At some time there was a before creation and then there was an after creation, (unless the universe is eternal) and some choice on GOD's part, (unless HE has no free will).

But you are just describing things from a temporal perspective. From the timeless one's perspective before creation and after creation are seen/experienced/responded to in the same moment. And, if it has free will, there would still be many possible choices for this timeless being to consider and make.

The problem is hell. Apparently the Timeless ONES saw folk in hell before creation but chose to create them anyway...making HIM a monster which is contrary to other considerations.

But you are treating the timeless being as though it were really temporal. A timeless creator would not see people in hell before creation, then choose to create everything anyway in the next moment.

So while I accept the philosophical construct, I do not accept its reality. I hope this is not too far off the topic,

I wasn't wanting to make this a Christian discussion alone, but I'm also not upset if other people want to focus in on that because it's not off topic.

[ScotS]

If they have neither the ability nor the opportunity to NOT DO THAT WHICH IS KNOWN, their will cannot be free. You change the meaning of the words but I don't recognize whose brand of theo-babble this is.

Peace, Ted

But... "that which is known" is determined precisely by what "they" do. The knowledge matches the fact, not the other way around.

The problem here is that people tend to assume that since the (fore)knowledge occurs before the event temporally, it has some sort of logical priority over the event. The fact being true is what makes the knowledge of the fact true, regardless of the temporal sequence.

Consider the following:

A := "On Oct 31, 1996, it rains in Atlanta".

B := "On Oct 31, 2016, it rains in Atlanta."

Both A and B have a truth value, today, of either true or false. I don't know the actual truth value of either myself, but let's assume that both are true for the sake of argument.

Let's say I happened to have been in Atlanta on Oct 31, 1996 and observed the rain. I have knowledge that A is true. Now, because I know A is true, does that mean it HAD to rain in Atlanta on that day? Of course not. There is no logical necessity for it to rain in Atlanta on that day or any other day. It just as easily could have been dry all day. In that case my knowledge would just be different; I would know that A is false instead. The only logical necessity here is that the fact and my knowledge must match.

It's really the same situation with B, with the exception that, as far as we know, we are not able to determine the truth value of it at our present perspective. That doesn't mean it doesn't have a truth value "now" or that B's truth can't be known "now". I see that more as a physical or technological limitation we have as humans. It's certainly not a logical limitation.

[ttruscott]

While I understand and accept the logic of this construct, I do not accept that it is meaningful to the Christian definitions. At some time there was a before creation and then there was an after creation, (unless the universe is eternal) and some choice on GOD's part, (unless HE has no free will).

But you are just describing things from a temporal perspective. From the timeless one's perspective before creation and after creation are seen/experienced/responded to in the same moment. And, if it has free will, there would still be many possible choices for this timeless being to consider and make.

...[/quote]


Can you really think for a timeless perspective? Can you prove that in a before an after experience that suggest a timed experience that such expressions of timelessness are more than sophistry leading to specious argument?

Choice also denotes time so timelessness would seem to be moot. Do these timeless persons experience time and no time at the same time?

Peace, Ted

[The Tanager]

Can you really think for a timeless perspective? Can you prove that in a before an after experience that suggest a timed experience that such expressions of timelessness are more than sophistry leading to specious argument?

Choice also denotes time so timelessness would seem to be moot. Do these timeless persons experience time and no time at the same time?

Peace, Ted

For the timeless being there would be no before/after experience at all. There is no expression of timelessness that also involves temporal befores and afters, by its very definition. The idea itself is not illogical like an unmarried bachelor and it's no strike against it that we have a temporal experience of reality.

And why do you think choice denotes time? Again you are already assuming that the temporal picture of choice is the only picture of choice. But that is the issue being discussed.

I'm not sure why you are asking if timeless persons experience time and no time at the same time? What does that question mean? Why do you think I'm suggesting something like this? Timeless persons experience reality in a non-temporal way, by definition.

[ttruscott]

...

The problem here is that people tend to assume that since the (fore)knowledge occurs before the event temporally, it has some sort of logical priority over the event. The fact being true is what makes the knowledge of the fact true, regardless of the temporal sequence.

...

You want my understanding of GOD to conform to your logic whereas I want your logci to conform to my understanding of GOD.

GOD hates evil and if a person cannot repent they must be banished to hell.
GOD does not want anyone to end in hell and would save every sinner if HE could.
GOD hates evil so HE does not create evil people but since He wants a true marriage relationship with those HE creates HE allows them a free will to reject HIM and become evil.

IF HE knows everyone's fate before their creation, all HE has to do to make sure no one ends in hell is to not create them. Period. No creation of them, no need for hell.

Therefore since there is a hell it proves HE does not know the ultimate end of HIS creatures before HE created them.

So while I accept the logic you folks present for a timeless GOD, these are the definitions of reality and of GOD that I use to repudiate that logic and to encourage Christians to not indulge in any definition of GOD that leads to the logical conclusion that HE is the creator of evil with a necessary creation of hell to house some of them but not all.

Why? because GOD is Holy, an idea sacrosanct to Christianity and to me. Since this is the philosophy forum, I wonder if I've gone astray,

peace, Ted

[ScotS]

You want my understanding of GOD to conform to your logic whereas I want your logci to conform to my understanding of GOD.

I'm not asking you to change your understanding of God. I never even mentioned God in my posts. I'm really just addressing the OPs more general topic of whether or not foreknowledge and free will are logically compatible concepts. I believe that they are.

[ttruscott]

You want my understanding of GOD to conform to your logic whereas I want your logci to conform to my understanding of GOD.

I'm not asking you to change your understanding of God. I never even mentioned God in my posts. I'm really just addressing the OPs more general topic of whether or not foreknowledge and free will are logically compatible concepts. I believe that they are.

I know you don't care what I believe but if I were to believe your definition, I would have to re-define my whole Christian experience so my answer pointed to that contrast. You was more generic than personal meaning "your argument".

It is important to me that people understand I am reasonable about my faith.

[ScioVeritas]

For starters I define free will to mean "freedom of choice dictated by nature" and with that definition in mind I submit that foreknowledge does not limit that capacity. God created the world for the express purpose of saving some so His grace could be shown. Does that mean that some people were created who He knew would NOT choose to follow Him? Yes - see Romans 9:15 -23.

In general, if I know that person A will go to the store to buy milk today that doesn't mean that person A necessarily HAS to go to the store and buy milk. That's their choice. My knowledge of an action happening in the future doesn't change the fact that person A can still do what they want.

[Haven]

For starters I define free will to mean "freedom of choice dictated by nature"

That seems like an odd definition of free will. If choice is constrained by nature ("nature" needs to be defined more robustly here), then it isn't free, at least not in the traditional libertarian sense.

The more mainstream definition of free will seems to be "freedom for some agent A to choose to take some action X without constraint by some outside force."

and with that definition in mind I submit that foreknowledge does not limit that capacity. God created the world for the express purpose of saving some so His grace could be shown. Does that mean that some people were created who He knew would NOT choose to follow Him? Yes - see Romans 9:15 -23.

So wouldn't people, under this scenario, not be free? Before they were even born, some people were constrained to be "saved" and others were constrained to not be "saved." They had no other options, because their situations were decided in advance by God. How do they possibly have free will in any sense (libertarian or otherwise)? Your scenario (actually Paul's scenario) seems like a classic example of divine determinism.

In general, if I know that person A will go to the store to buy milk today that doesn't mean that person A necessarily HAS to go to the store and buy milk. That's their choice. My knowledge of an action happening in the future doesn't change the fact that person A can still do what they want.

You're equivocating on "knowledge" here.

Knowledge, in your scenario, means "a best guess based on the available data" (person A drinks milk, she is out, she will want milk, so she will go). It's possible that you may be wrong because your knowledge, in this case, is an estimate based on probabilities (it's possible that person A may send her partner to buy milk, she may wait until tomorrow, or she may go vegan). Person A has free will in this case (assuming there are no other constraints on her actions, which is a topic for another debate)

God, however, doesn't have this type of knowledge. As an omniscient being, she/he/it has perfect, infallible knowledge; understanding with absolute certainty what events will occur, with zero possibility of error. If God knows that person A will buy milk today, and God can't be wrong (because, again, omniscience implies infallibility), then there is no other possible action that person A can take: she MUST buy milk today. Person A is determined to buy milk; she has no other option. Divine foreknowledge has created a deterministic situation for her.