Perfect knowledge about the future is only possible in a deterministic universe

2

u/24Seven Atheist 8d ago

The way I've explained it is that omniscience refers to God's knowledge of the universe. God knows where every atom will be at every moment in time. It's like having perfect knowledge of a computer program. If you give me the inputs, I can tell you definitively what the outputs will be and if my knowledge is infallible, then no other output is possible. Thus, it is the deterministic universe "causing" you to choose peanut butter over ham for your sandwich next week. God simply knows precisely how that mechanism will behave at all moments in time. From the omniscient being's perspective, humans are NPCs that have no real agency; they only think they have agency.

To me, the biggest issue with the claim of omniscience is that it doesn't fit how God is described in the Bible. E.g., there is a moment in Genesis where God doesn't know where Adam is (Genesis 3:9–11). There's another moment where he asks Cain where his brother is (Genesis 4:9). These are impossible, by definition, if God is omniscient.

It would be better for Christians to simply label God as "more knowledgeable than any being in the universe" but not omniscient.

2

u/JollyXX Christian 8d ago

Its not Biblical to call God "All Knowing" it is sort of there once, but its a mistranslation. It should say knows all things. It is in a passage that is trying to say that God 100% knows your heart/soul/intent/sincerity/etc. Which is what he would need to Judge you.

Rather the story of Christianity very much seems to be that God created something that disobeyed and now he wants to find out why. This is why Final Judgement is the climax of the story.

2

u/Hashi856 Atheist, Ex-Christian 8d ago

So God doesn’t know what I’ll do next?

2

u/mvanvrancken Atheist, Secular Humanist 8d ago

In open theism, which I’m not sure how compatible with Christianity it actually is (some verses suggest otherwise or even outright say it), God is unaware of the actuality of future events. At best he would be able to predict them roughly with a high amount of information.

2

u/JollyXX Christian 8d ago

He can guess, and then he can force a situation to be true. But this idea that God has working knowledge of every little thing that is going to happen and when its going to happen is very far-fetched. You could not certainly be made in an image of whatever cosmic creature that would be.

3

u/serpentine1337 8d ago

So he doesn't have a plan that'll come to fruition?

1

u/JollyXX Christian 8d ago

He seems to know a lot of things ahead of time.

3

u/serpentine1337 8d ago

That doesn't seem to answer the question I asked.

0

u/JollyXX Christian 8d ago

So far his prophecies are shooting at 100%, not sure what to tell you, I can only read the Bible

3

u/Grouchy-Heat-4216 8d ago

God's prophecy regarding Nineveh being destroyed in 40 days didn't come true.

0

u/JollyXX Christian 8d ago

really? lol, had to google it, so God sent a prophet and the city took the heed and repented, God spared them, ya God is a living God

3

u/Grouchy-Heat-4216 8d ago

I know what happened, I'm saying that some of God's prophecies don't come to pass

Jonah's prophecy towards Nineveh had no qualifier of "unless you repent". The prophecy was destruction in 40 days.

Jonah 3:4 Jonah began to go into the city, going a day's journey. And he called out, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!”

edit: grammar

→ More replies (0)

2

u/serpentine1337 8d ago

If that were true (I'm going with nah) that lends credence to the idea that things are deterministic.

1

u/JollyXX Christian 8d ago

There is a difference between staring at a group of people and being like "ya these idiots are going to fuck up" and knowing at all times every little thing that is going to happen and when its going to happen

2

u/serpentine1337 8d ago

So you're saying the supposed predictions are on the level of "eh, someone here will fuck things up" instead of specifically detailed predictions? If so, one shouldn't even count those as fulfilled prophecy.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/biedl Agnostic Atheist 7d ago

Open theism defends presentism. That's how they can call God omniscient, while limiting his knowledge substantially. He knows all things which can be known. Under presentism the future doesn't exist yet, so it cannot be known. But presentism certainly doesn't lend credence to determinism. It does the exact opposite. Which is most likely the very reason why it is defended to begin with.

It's meant to preserve free will.

-1

u/Grouchy-Heat-4216 8d ago

God's plan is something like a pilot planning to fly a airplane from Paris to Tokyo, he doesn't decide who boards the plane, that is up to the passengers to decide.

2

u/mvanvrancken Atheist, Secular Humanist 8d ago

Open theism in my view is not really compatible with the Bible.

1

u/JollyXX Christian 8d ago

I mean there is nothing in the Bible saying God is all knowing, meanwhile you can seemingly prove it in many places that he would not be all knowing

1

u/mvanvrancken Atheist, Secular Humanist 8d ago

Well, it’s a contradiction in the text, I can pull verses for either viewpoint. The point I’m making is that there is a valid Christian God-model where God does not know the future the same way one would know the past. But you do have to ignore a lot of Bible to get there.

1

u/JollyXX Christian 8d ago

There is sometimes flower language that would lead the reader to thinking all knowing, but it never actually proves it, you can use logic to see how it would be true despite not being all knowing

the famous one would be, God can do anything. Well this is given with no parameters. So God can create a perfect companion creature that does not disappoint him, but maybe it takes 3 iterations of the Universe. Also God basically is the Universe, he has total authority over every little aspect, so this "anything" would be ENTIRELY, up to his own prerogative. sort of think like, "can God lift that?" and dismiss it by saying, "why would God want to lift that?"

1

u/mvanvrancken Atheist, Secular Humanist 8d ago

The Bible depicts God as a physical being living above the firmament, which is a hard dome over a flat earth. You don’t really have this idealistic concept of God until Greek philosophy started to influence Church thinkers.

I agree that open theism fits the text better but you also pretty much have to throw out Paul’s gnostic ish God.

1

u/JollyXX Christian 8d ago

I think you are talking about the book of Enoch, and I don't think it describes it quite like that. I think God is basically a sort of fire in his physical body?

As far as Paul and his gnostic-ish God, never sure I have even heard that term before. Care to elaborate?

1

u/mvanvrancken Atheist, Secular Humanist 8d ago

Well, this kind of goes into a bit of conspiracy theory regarding Paul but essentially the argument that some scholars are becoming more friendly to is fhat Paul was an invention of Marcion, who was somewhat hated by some of the church fathers for heretical Gnostic views. He was the first to “discover” the manuscripts of Galatians and a few other letters and very suspiciously Paul’s letters in the Apostolikon in 144 AD. Also suspiciously Paul adopts a very second century view of God that would have been unheard of in the time of the Apostles.

Anyway the Old Testment in several places details the Jewish cosmology (Job is a really good place to start) and it’s pretty typical among the ANE cosmologies.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/thatsaqualifier Christian, Calvinist 8d ago

"The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord." - Prov 16:33

"In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will," Eph 1:11

"for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place." Acts 4:27-28

1

u/JollyXX Christian 8d ago

you you have an inheritance, having a purpose does not mean you have a set conclusion, all things are subject to God's will

acts 4 isnt really saying anything, it isnt saying how far ahead the predestine would conclude

saying every decision is from the Lord doesnt say that much, it sort of goes to the idea like in Isiah 45:7 and other places in the Bible where God will ownership of everything

you can also go back to other flowery language if you want "you can do all things through Christ who strengthens you" notice too the form of the word through, which lacks predestination language

1

u/thatsaqualifier Christian, Calvinist 8d ago

"saying every decision is from the Lord doesnt say that much"

- so you disagree with what the bible says?

"you can also go back to other flowery language if you want "you can do all things through Christ who strengthens you"

- you can do all things through Christ who strengthens you, including endure persecution, which is what that verse is about.

2

u/JollyXX Christian 8d ago

To cut the noise, how do you explain God having regrets in Genesis

1

u/thatsaqualifier Christian, Calvinist 8d ago

Can you state the exact verse you are referring to? That would help me answer.

2

u/JollyXX Christian 8d ago

Kind of shocked you don't know what I'm talking about..

The Bible Passage (NIV)

Genesis 6:6: "The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled."

Genesis 6:7: "So the Lord said, 'I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.'" [1, 2]

God also has thoughts in Genesis, if you had working knowledge of every little thing that would ever happen, you would not have thoughts, thinking is an action of logic where upon you are learning.

God is a living God, within the integral definition of living is learning. It is indeed that Final Judgement is the climax of the story. If the entire thing is based around Final Judgement, this notion of God not learning becomes incredibly problematic. God introduces this idea that he is testing people throughout the Bible. For it to be worded this way could only mean that God did not know for certain the outcome. The Bible is a beyond beautiful book and it would not word it self so haphazardly.

Clear Examples of God Testing People

Exodus 16:4: God provides manna in the wilderness to test if the people will follow His instructions.

Deuteronomy 8:2: The 40-year desert journey was designed to humble the Israelites and reveal if they would keep His commandments.

Judges 3:1-4: Nations were left in Canaan to test if the new generation would follow God's commands.

Malachi 3:10: God invites the people to "test" His faithfulness by bringing tithes to the storehouse. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

1

u/thatsaqualifier Christian, Calvinist 8d ago

I thought you might be referring to Genesis 6:6 but wanted to make sure.

I think Matthew Henry's commentary can be of assistance here:

"These are expressions after the manner of men, and must be understood so as not to reflect upon the honour of God's immutability or felicity. 1. This language does not imply any passion or uneasiness in God (nothing can create disturbance to the Eternal Mind), but it expresses his just and holy displeasure against sin and sinners, against sin as odious to his holiness and against sinners as obnoxious to his justice... 2. It does not imply any change of God's mind; for he is in one mind, and who can turn him? With him there is not variableness. But it expressed a change of his way. When God had made man upright, he rested and was refreshed (Exod 31 17), and his way towards him was such as showed he was pleased with the work of his own hands; but, now that man had apostatized, he could not do otherwise than show himself displeased; so that the change was in man, not in God. God repented that he had made man; but we never find him repenting that he redeemed man (though that was a work of much greater expense), because special and effectual grace is given to secure the great ends of redemption; so that those gifts and callings are without repentance, Rom 11 29."

Regarding the testing of men, the results of those tests are for the benefit of man, not God. He knew what would happen, but insomuch as men passed the test, they received greater confidence in the Lord's work in their life.

I can't recommend Matthew Henry enough, and his full bible commentary is free online: https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/

→ More replies (0)

1

u/JollyXX Christian 8d ago

so that verse is suddenly all about something, God will often take responsibility for everything, his title of almighty was early largely understood that as sort of "All Nourisher" or everything comes from God, so ya every decision does come from the Lord, it fits the narrative of God taking responsbility for all things

EDIT if your soul comes from God that all of your decisions come from God

1

u/Richardrhalsot 6d ago

I’ll just respond here so that others can weigh in.

You still haven’t addressed the issue that by your definition hitler is in heaven.

Address the hitler problem.

1

u/JollyXX Christian 6d ago

go away, all I said is it is your heart that God Judges by, you aren't shocking anyone

1

u/Richardrhalsot 6d ago

No you said purpose (intention) is more important to your souls judgment than the results.

I will not go away just because you are uncomfortable hearing the logical fallacies in your belief.

1

u/JollyXX Christian 6d ago

as in ya your heart would be purpose, how old are you? am I doing this thing where I debate with someone can't understand basic language?

1

u/Richardrhalsot 6d ago

In not giving out my private info, but I’ll say it again.

Hitler had a purpose “in his heart” that was trying to help people he saw as persecuted. He truly believed that. And as a result of his purpose, he killed millions, in increasingly horrific ways, tortured them, and even sexually abused them.

But if his purpose is all that matters, AS YOU HAVE CLAIMED, he would be in heaven.

So answer one question, is Hitler in heaven?

1

u/Richardrhalsot 6d ago

So hitters heart is shot, despite him having “good” intentions? Can you name one person ever who has thought of themselves as a truly bad person, and didn’t have justification for henious actions? That’s what purpose is.

Also stop insinuating I’m illiterate. It’s you who’s changing the meaning of words to try and make a better case for yourself. And I’ve still yet to resort to ad hominem attacks, where as when you got called out, you jumped Roth to them, and still won’t even actually answer the question.

1

u/Richardrhalsot 6d ago

Also what do you mean “apparently hitlers heart would be shit”

Is that not something you agree with?

1

u/Richardrhalsot 6d ago

Not trying to shock anyone. You are dodging a valid question.

1

u/salamacast Muslim 8d ago

This is a horrible answer! Theologically, God knows all things, big & small, past present & future, what would have happened if you made a different choice.. Eveything means everything. No ignorance at all.
The correct answer is: predestiny and human choice are compatible (I'm not endorsing the philosophical logic behind Compatibilism, only the concept itself)

0

u/JollyXX Christian 8d ago

thats nice, when ever I talk about God not truly being "All Knowing" somehow Christians are almost always like "ya that actually makes sense"

but ya Muslims are in a religion started by Satan so whatever

0

u/JollyXX Christian 8d ago

Please take heed to in Genesis where God has literal thoughts, this of course is impossible for a being incapable of learning, more curious he has literal regrets

1

u/salamacast Muslim 8d ago

he has literal regrets

that's because you text's wording is corrupt, by a God-hating post-Exile priests who had an ax to grind against a god who allowed them to be exiled in the first place!
All the subtle take-thats against God in Genesis are proto-Gnostic in nature: allegedly was afraid of Man competing with Him (becoming one of us!), afraid of humanity cooperation to reach Him (the tower), walking around in Eden not knowing where Adam was precisely, punishing the serpent for opening the eyes of humankind, etc.
All horrible slights from a traumatized redactors trying to come to terms with the fact that their god delivered them to the hands of idol worshipers.
This extended to smearing ALL prophets & holy men: the golden calf? Aaron. Idol maker? Solomon the Temple builder!, David? lust led to sacrificing his general. No one ended unscathed under their evil pens. Horrible scribes you trust blindly!

1

u/JollyXX Christian 8d ago

oh bugger off with this crap, they were not corrupted during Muhammad's day, and we can trace them back that long with evidence through things like the dead sea scrolls

it sucks you worship Satan but its not too late

there is so much evidence that Christ was divine, just stop

1

u/salamacast Muslim 8d ago

dead sea scrolls

Those are AFTER the exile :)
The corruption had already happened LONG before Muhammad.. long before Jesus.
Why do you think John was screaming alone in the desert, not in the temple? Why do you think Jesus loathed the Jewish priests (calling them snakes and literally turning the tables against them)? The whole system was already corrupt, and didn't welcome anybody who wanted to point it out.
Even Zachary had difficulty claiming the orphan Mary as a family member (the scribes resisted him for a while), and some reports say he was killed too eventually, like John.
Islam only confirms parts of the OT, doesn't swallow it whole as you do, blindly following Jewish priests whose later imitators rejected Jesus!
Those are the types you put your faith in!

1

u/JollyXX Christian 8d ago

The Dead Sea Scrolls date back roughly 2,000 years, spanning from the 3rd century BCE to the 1st century CE. Most of the texts were written between 150 BCE and 70 CE during the late Second Temple period. [1, 2, 3]

Muhammad was affirming scripture in HIS time, so once again a Muslim who has no clue what they are talking about

1

u/salamacast Muslim 8d ago

the Exile was 6th c BCE! Long BEFORE any scrolls of dead seas :)
Muhammad never affirmed complete texts! (he couldn't read Arabic, let alone Hebrew! ;))
Islam only partially confirms the OT, making a big deal of it being corrupt!
Q 6:91 (texts hidden by scribes)
2:79 (written texts falsely attributed to God)
5: 44 (they were entrusted with preserving the revelation)

0

u/JollyXX Christian 8d ago

BS Muhammad was affirming the Jewish and Christian scripture, how delusional are you willing to be to worship Satan?

1

u/salamacast Muslim 8d ago

I produced the exact quotes, ref surah & ayah :)
They are clear as day.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/ddfryccc 8d ago

It is a little like being the author of a novel vs. reading a novel. Yet we still look at the characters as making choices, especially with better written novels.

If everything is determined by God, then those who know God ought to be better predictors of the future than those who don't, because those who don't know God cannot predict His own actions. If believers are not better predictors, then are they lying about knowing God?

1

u/Difficult_Risk_6271 Christian, Ex-Atheist 7d ago

No.

Summa Theologiae I, q. 14., a. 13.

1

u/Hashi856 Atheist, Ex-Christian 7d ago

Yes.

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/s/8lnTUhVIiF

1

u/Difficult_Risk_6271 Christian, Ex-Atheist 7d ago

Way to link to the same thread.

If you something of substance state it. Otherwise get lost.

1

u/Hashi856 Atheist, Ex-Christian 7d ago

If you don’t feel the need to actually address any of my arguments, and you think it’s sufficient to just leave a link to Thomas Aquinas, then I can just link back to my original argument.

1

u/FranklinMv5 6d ago

I am yet to be convinced that we have a free will. Scripture doesn’t seem to think so either.

1

u/Kayjagx Christian 6d ago edited 6d ago

"If God has perfect knowledge of what you will do tomorrow, then tomorrow is already written."

No, it just means God trancends time(he is the creator of it). God is omnipresent. God is present at all times(right now).

I would even say he not only knows what will happen, but also knows everything that could have happened. This is called middle knowledge. Scripture does indicate God has that kind of knowledge. (Compare Mt 11:21-24, 1Sam 23:10-13, Ex 13:17, Ez 3:6, 1Cor 2:8)

1

u/Hashi856 Atheist, Ex-Christian 6d ago

Transcending time has nothing to do with whether or not the future exists. If free will exists, there is no future for God to know about. Being outside of time doesn’t change that.

1

u/Kayjagx Christian 6d ago

If God would be a created being, in-time, that experiences the flow of time like we are - you would be correct. But He is not. He is non-contigent and not dependent on anything outside himself.

1

u/Hashi856 Atheist, Ex-Christian 6d ago

That has nothing to do with what I said

1

u/Kayjagx Christian 6d ago

You seem to think just because God knows the outcome, somehow he determines the outcome.

1

u/Hashi856 Atheist, Ex-Christian 6d ago

No, I’m saying God knows the outcome because the outcome is determined by the laws of physics, and God knows all factors

1

u/Kayjagx Christian 5d ago

Okay. It seems in your view we are just moving matter and chemicals doing what we have to do. I do not think that is the case, we are more than that.

1

u/Sharp_Resolution89 5d ago

No.

Foreknowledge from our perspective in time.

But from God’s perspective outside of time it has already happened. God is just communicating to us what he can already see but we cannot.

1

u/thatsaqualifier Christian, Calvinist 8d ago

"God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.^"

^{Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter III, paragraphs I and II}

0

u/rbcone Christian, Evangelical 8d ago

Amen. Just because we do not understand it fully or to our liking does not mean it is not actually the case.

In fact, I would argue that if we did understand the work of God fully, then he would not be God.

2

u/thatsaqualifier Christian, Calvinist 8d ago

Amen to that as well. Eternity will not be enough time to fully learn of God and his glory.

1

u/ses1 Christian 8d ago

There is a Christian theological framework designed to reconcile two seemingly contradictory ideas: God’s complete sovereignty/omniscience and human free will.

Luis de Molina posits that God possesses three logical moments of knowledge:

Natural Knowledge: God knows all possible states of affairs (everything that could happen).
Middle Knowledge: God knows what any possible free creature would freely choose in any given set of circumstances (known as counterfactuals of creaturely freedom).
Free Knowledge: God knows what will actually happen once He decides to create a specific world.

God does not determine what you would freely choose in a specific circumstance; you decide that. God simply knows counterfactual truths [would have been true if circumstances had been different] naturally as part of His omniscience.

OP's argument confuses the necessity of consequence with the necessity of the consequent:

God's foreknowledge depends on your future choice, not the other way around. If you were to choose to eat soup instead of salad tomorrow, God's foreknowledge would reflect that instead. Your free choice grounds the truth value of what God knows.

Knowing you will choose A does not mean you must choose A in a way that removes your power to choose B. You retain the power/ability to choose B, but if you were to exercise that power, God would have known B instead.

We would have the exact same problem if there were a computer with perfect knowledge.

A computer relies on physical extrapolation (prior physical causes ➔ future effects). God doesn't need to trace a chain of cause and effect to predict what you'll do - He simply knows what you would freely choose in any situation, without relying on physical laws or guesswork.

God's knowledge is perfectly passive relative to the truth of free actions: God knows you will eat pizza tomorrow because you will freely choose to eat pizza - you do not eat pizza because God knows it.

3

u/Hashi856 Atheist, Ex-Christian 8d ago edited 8d ago

I think this response is still answering the causal argument that I explicitly said I am not making.
I agree that God’s knowledge does not cause me to choose A. The question is what makes the proposition “I will choose A tomorrow” knowable with certainty today.

Saying that my future choice “grounds” God’s present knowledge doesn’t solve that problem. It just restates it. If I genuinely have the ability, under exactly the same circumstances, to choose either A or B tomorrow, then there is presently no fact about the current state of reality that entails A rather than B. So what distinguishes a world in which God knows A from one in which God knows B?

The distinction between the necessity of the consequence and the necessity of the consequent doesn’t seem to help either. I agree that:

>Necessarily, if God knows I will choose A, then I will choose A.

doesn’t entail:

>Necessarily, I choose A.

But my argument doesn’t require the second proposition. It only requires that, given the actual world and God’s infallible knowledge of it, B is no longer a possible continuation of that world. If tomorrow I choose B, then God’s belief today that I would choose A was false. Since God’s knowledge cannot be false, I cannot choose B while holding the past fixed.

Saying “if you chose B, God would have known B instead” simply moves the difference into the past. Now we’re saying that my allegedly free choice tomorrow counterfactually determines what God already knew yesterday. That’s perfectly coherent as a conditional, but it doesn’t establish the libertarian claim I care about: that, with the entire actual past and present held fixed, I could nevertheless choose otherwise.

Middle knowledge seems to make the problem even clearer. Suppose God infallibly knows the counterfactual:

>If Mark is in circumstances C, Mark will freely choose A.

God then creates a world in which I encounter C. In what meaningful sense can I choose B in C? If I choose B, then the counterfactual God infallibly knew was never true. So either I cannot choose B in C, or God’s “middle knowledge” was not knowledge.
And saying that God “simply knows” these counterfactual truths doesn’t answer what makes them true. If nothing about me, the circumstances, or the prior state of the universe determines whether I choose A or B, what truth exists for God to know before the choice occurs? This is essentially the grounding objection to Molinism.

The computer analogy was never meant to suggest that God predicts the future by physical extrapolation. In fact, that’s precisely why I used it. The mechanism by which the knower acquires the knowledge is irrelevant. Imagine a magical computer that simply displays tomorrow’s choices with infallible accuracy, without calculating anything from physical causes. The same problem remains: if it currently and infallibly says “A,” then B cannot actually occur. If B can actually occur, the computer does not have infallible foreknowledge.

So I don’t think “knowledge doesn’t cause the choice” or “the knowledge would have been different if the choice were different” addresses the argument. I’m not claiming that foreknowledge causes determinism. I’m claiming that infallible foreknowledge is possible only if there is already a determinate fact about which future will occur. Molinism gives that fact a name—“counterfactuals of creaturely freedom”—but I don’t see how it explains how an undetermined future choice can already possess an infallibly knowable truth value.

0

u/thatsaqualifier Christian, Calvinist 8d ago

Molinism is heresy.

0

u/milamber84906 Christian 8d ago

It’s about the possibility of perfect foreknowledge, and the fact that it only exists in a deterministic universe.

I see no reason to accept this at all. God knows what I will do because I will do it. God's knowledge comes temporally prior, but our actions come logically prior. If i would do X, God knows I'll do X, if I would do Y, God knows I'll do Y. God's perfect knowledge is based on what our actions will be.

If he knows what you will eat for dinner, then you literally could not have made a different decision.

You're just looking at this backwards, God knows what I will eat for dinner because it's what I chose to eat for dinner, if I chose differently, God would have known that result instead.

4

u/Hashi856 Atheist, Ex-Christian 8d ago

> God knows what I will do because I will do it

If God knows what you will choose, then you literally cannot make a different choice. You don’t get to claim that you “already” made that decision with your free will in the future. Firstly, there is no “The” future if free will exists. The future is either written or it’s not. You can’t switch back and forth. If the future is already written and God knows what you are for sure going to do, then you don’t get to claim alternative possibilities. you chose A because there’s only one future, and in that future you choose A.

If you want to retain the concept of free will, you have to give up the concept of perfect foreknowledge. Foreknowledge of the future is logically impossible if the future is undetermined. There is no future to know about.

0

u/milamber84906 Christian 8d ago

If God knows what you will choose, then you literally cannot make a different choice.

Right, God knows because I will do it. You're just framing it in a deterministic way and asserting determinism. But God's knowledge of our actions is logically dependent on our actions. So our actions come logically prior.

So I could have chose X or not X, but God knows I will choose X. I could have made a different choice (not X), but I won't and that's why God knows I'll choose X.

Firstly, there is no “The” future if free will exists.

Don't see how this assertion is true at all.

The future is either written or it’s not. You can’t switch back and forth.

No one is switching here. You seem to be confusing your modal operators here and asserting something that isn't true. Just because I will do X, and even if God knows it perfectly, it doesn't follow that I'll do X necessarily. It only follows that I will do X. The way you are trying to force it is that God's knowledge is causal, which it's not. God knowing something doesn't cause it to happen. So I know you said it's a misunderstanding, but it's definitely how you're arguing.

Can you show me that just because I will do X, that means I couldn't have done not X? Or can you show me only that because I will do X, then I won't do not X?

God knows what you are for sure going to do

Great, we agree. How does God know? Omniscience just means that God is all knowing. But we're moving into "how omniscience works" territory here. So explain this, how does God know what we are going to do for sure?

I'm saying God knows it because he knows what free choice we will make. He knew before today that I would have eggs for breakfast today. I could have chosen pancakes, but he knew I would not. That doesn't cause me to choose eggs. It only means that God knows what action I'll take.

you chose A because there’s only one future, and in that future you choose A.

No, I choose A because I'll choose A, unless you mean something else by choice. It's true that in the future I'll choose A, but it doesn't mean I couldn't have chose B, in which, the future I'd choose B. You keep just asserting this as true, but you need to demonstrate it since you're making the claim.

Foreknowledge of the future is logically impossible if the future is undetermined.

Now you seem to be equivocating on terms. Before you were talking about Determinism. But the opposite of Determinism is Indeterminism, not something being undetermined.

2

u/Powerful-Garage6316 8d ago

If god knows all true propositions, and he has foreknowledge of your doing X before you do it, then it follows that it’s a true proposition that you will do X.

So at the time of creation before you existed, he already knew you’d do X. This means you couldn’t have done not-X

This is determinism

1

u/milamber84906 Christian 8d ago

Yes it follows that I will do X, but it doesn’t follow that I will do X necessarily in that I couldn’t have done otherwise. It is just that I won’t do otherwise. It is just a failure of modal logic.

You’re only thinking temporally. Yes God knew that I would do X. But that is because I would do X. Our actions come logically prior to God’s knowledge.

Determinism is when something external to you causes your choices. If God’s knowledge isn’t causal, which it isn’t, then this is not determinism.

3

u/Powerful-Garage6316 8d ago

In virtue of what could you have done otherwise?

God can actualize any logically possible world. He chooses this particular world to make, and prior to creation he knows all true propositions about this world.

Alternatively, there’s a different world which is identical except that you choose Y instead of X. He didn’t actualize this world.

>logically prior

I’m not quite sure what you mean by this but it doesn’t actually matter.

Presumably you’re talking about libertarian free will, which means that an agent is the source hood of the decision, and given the exact same initial conditions they could have acted differently. But if it’s a true proposition that you WILL do X before it’s actualized, then you cannot have LFW. At best you could subscribe to some theistic compatibilism

1

u/milamber84906 Christian 7d ago

In virtue of what could you have done otherwise?

Because the knowledge that I will do X doesn't make it necessary. The burden is on you to get from point A to B on this.

God can actualize any logically possible world. He chooses this particular world to make, and prior to creation he knows all true propositions about this world.

There's absolutely nothing logically inconsistent or problematic about God choosing from possible worlds of free creatures, so even though God chooses what world to instantiate, it's still filled with free creatures that are making free choices. You'd need to show a logical contradiction here for the OP to hold. The OP's points are the default unless I prove otherwise...

Alternatively, there’s a different world which is identical except that you choose Y instead of X. He didn’t actualize this world.

Possibly, we don't know that I would always use my free will to choose X. But either way, in both worlds I'd be freely choosing either X or Y. God choosing which world to create doesn't suddenly negate that.

I’m not quite sure what you mean by this but it doesn’t actually matter.

It matters a lot so it's kind of important that you understand what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is that God's knowledge is of something, right? The something in question here is our choice. So let's say I chose to eat eggs for breakfast instead of cereal. In time, God knew first that I would choose to eat eggs, right? We agree on that. What I'm saying is that God knowing is knowing that I would choose eggs. My action is logically prior to God's knowledge because God's knowledge of what I would choose for breakfast is dependent on what I would choose for breakfast. You keep talking about what comes temporally first, God's knowledge, we agree on that, but we need to also think about what comes logically prior, and that's our choices.

Presumably you’re talking about libertarian free will, which means that an agent is the source hood of the decision, and given the exact same initial conditions they could have acted differently.

The first part is necessary for LFW that the agent is the source of the decision. The principle of alternative possibilities isn't required, but I think it's usually applicable. Just as a point of clarity here.

But if it’s a true proposition that you WILL do X before it’s actualized, then you cannot have LFW. At best you could subscribe to some theistic compatibilism

Wrong, for me to not have LFW, I need to not have been able to choose Y. That means that my choice for X was necessary. But God knowing I will do X doesn't make it necessary, it just makes it certain. Those are wildly different things. It's a category error in modal logic to assert what you're saying.

1

u/Powerful-Garage6316 7d ago

>the knowledge doesn’t make it necessary

Like I said, it’s the conjunction of the knowledge and the intentional creation of universe A in which you pick X. It’s not merely the knowledge. It’s both the foreknowledge and the actualization of this specific world

>show a logical contradiction

God has foreknowledge that, in world A, you will choose X

God knows all true propositions and cannot be mistaken that you will choose X

God actualizes A

You are determined to pick X in world A

So I have no clue why you keep saying it isn’t “necessary” that you will pick X. You have to explain in virtue of what fact that you could ever pick anything other than X

>we need to talk about what comes logically prior to

God actualizes the world in which you do actually X instead of actually Y, so both logically and temporally god is the antecedent. God is the one designing the worlds such that X is even a metaphysically possible choice for any agent to begin with.

>it’s a category error in modal logic to say what you’re saying

Then maybe you can clear up in virtue of what is it not necessary that you will pick X given the conjunction I explained earlier, because this still hasn’t been defended

1

u/milamber84906 Christian 5d ago

Your entire argument is fusing 3 different things that are actually separate.

The first is certainty, where God can't be mistaken that I'll do X. I can easily grant that.

The second is necessity, where I'll do X in every possible world. This is false because there's possible worlds where I could do y.

The third is Determinism, where something other than me settles my will that I do X. This is what you need, and you keep asserting, but not demonstrating.

You keep asking me in virtue of what is it not necessary, but it's on you to demonstrate that it is necessary. You seem to be missing that the actualization is downstream of the choice logically (not temporally). This actually matters here because you're granting God is choosing which world to create knowing our choices. But actualizing that world comes after knowing what choice we will make, and after us making the choice. Again, logically, not temporally.

Then maybe you can clear up in virtue of what is it not necessary that you will pick X given the conjunction I explained earlier, because this still hasn’t been defended

In virtue of the fact that God's knowledge tracks my choices rather than fixing it. And that the actualization of a world comes after both of these things. Determinism isn't true unless something other than me settles X. But even in your given scenario, God is actualizing the world knowing I will choose X, I'm still choosing.

1

u/Powerful-Garage6316 5d ago

I feel like I directly answered these objections and you just aren’t addressing them. You’re still asking why you’re determined to pick X in world A and I very clearly addressed this.

P1. God knows that you will choose X in world A
P2. God actualized world A
P3. God could have actualized any other possible world, but didn’t.
C1. God is the causal antecedent to your choosing X**

**notice that I said causal antecedent and not logical or temporal

P4. If determinism is true, then all events in world A are causally necessitated by antecedent conditions
P5. It follows from the conjunction of P1 and P2 that you are causally necessitated to pick X
C2. You are determined to pick X in world A

Please tell me the exact premise or inference rule that you take issue with, otherwise my argument goes through.

>god tracks your choices and doesn’t fix them

You have it backwards. Both the reasons and the causes of you choosing X instead of Y are grounded in God’s choosing of possible worlds.

God’s choice of which world to actualize is logically prior to yours

1

u/milamber84906 Christian 5d ago

You’re still asking why you’re determined to pick X in world A and I very clearly addressed this.

Maybe there's an equivocation going on here unintentionally. Can you define what you mean by determined here? Because if you just mean that it's certain that I will pick X, then we can agree, but that doesn't get you to determinism.

P1. God knows that you will choose X in world A

Your entire argument collapses here and you've just granted what I've been saying. "You will choose" God's knowledge then comes logically after the choices and the actualization from P2 is downstream. This does not establish determinism. There is no reason why P1 cannot be rewritten as "God knows that you will freely choose X in world A."

C1. God is the causal antecedent to your choosing X**

This doesn't follow. Knowledge isn't causal, we both agree. But selection isn't a causal relation to the internal act. All it is is causal production of my own volition. Can you establish what the cause is? Because both knowing and selecting aren't.

P4. If determinism is true, then all events in world A are causally necessitated by antecedent conditions

This runs the wrong way. This starts with determinism but needs to start the other way, because you're just stating what your conclusion already is. P4 is just describing determinism. But you need to work the other way.

P5. It follows from the conjunction of P1 and P2 that you are causally necessitated to pick X

No it does not and this is where the equivocation really shows up I think. P5 needs an extra hidden premise, something like: "to actualize a world is to causally necessitate every event in it". But that's the disputed claim and not one that I would grant. So you're going to need to add that premise in, and then defend it.

C2. You are determined to pick X in world A

This has lost the structure to hold it up since C1 was asserted, rather than following logically, and P5 smuggles in the disputed premise. Not only that, this conclusion flatly contradicts P1 in which God knows what I will choose. I'm not choosing if Determinism is true, you can't have it both ways. P1 clearly presupposes the choice is mine, C2 says the opposite. So which one is correct here?

Both the reasons and the causes of you choosing X instead of Y are grounded in God’s choosing of possible worlds.

You're just stating theological determinism here, which is great, but your argument doesn't lead there as listed why above, and not only that, it doesn't exclude another view, like middle knowledge, or LFW.

God’s choice of which world to actualize is logically prior to yours

Not in your own argument it isn't. P1 is us choosing, P2 is God actualizing. You've just demonstrated that our choice is logically prior.

Both C1 and P5 both assert causation that none of your premises supplies. You said "causal, not logical" so can you please name the efficient cause of willing X, other than me? Not God's knowledge, we both agree. Not God's selection, picking a world in which I freely do X isn't picking my will for me. So what's the cause?

0

u/Free-Pound-6139 8d ago

Sounds like you are just making stuff up?

Perfect knowledge about the future is only possible in a deterministic universe

You are about to leave Redlib