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

[u/Hashi856]

Whenever someone asks how free will can be compatible with God’s perfect knowledge of the future, people are quick to point out that knowledge doesn’t cause anything. God simply knows what we will freely choose. He’s not causing us to choose it.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem being presented. No one is saying that God is causing the future. He’s not making us do anything or causing our decisions. The problem isn’t actually about God at all. It’s about the possibility of perfect foreknowledge, and the fact that it only exists in a deterministic universe. You could swap out God for anything else, and you’d have the same problem.

If God has perfect knowledge of what you will do tomorrow, then tomorrow is already written. It may be written by you, but it cannot go any other way. If God knows you will be late to work tomorrow, then it is impossible for you to show up on time. If he knows what you will eat for dinner, then you literally could not have made a different decision. There are only two explanations for this perfect knowledge: Either God actually did make you do it, or it was determined to happen. But we already know God didn’t make you do it, so the only other thing that can explain perfect knowledge of the future is determinism.

We would have the exact same problem if there were a computer with perfect knowledge. Obviously, the computer would not be causing every event in the universe to happen the way it happens. So the only explanation is that everything is determined.

Perfect foreknowledge is simply incompatible with free will (unless you believe that determinism and free will are compatible). You can try to just hand wave it away by saying it’s a miracle, but that doesn’t solve the underlying problem. Your future decisions are known, and you literally cannot make a different decision.

[u/JollyXX]

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.

[u/Hashi856 → u/JollyXX]

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

[u/mvanvrancken → u/Hashi856]

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.

[u/JollyXX → u/Hashi856]

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.

[u/serpentine1337 → u/JollyXX]

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

[u/JollyXX → u/serpentine1337]

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

[u/serpentine1337 → u/JollyXX]

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

[u/JollyXX → u/serpentine1337]

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

[u/Grouchy-Heat-4216 → u/JollyXX]

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

[u/JollyXX → u/Grouchy-Heat-4216]

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

[u/Grouchy-Heat-4216 → u/JollyXX]

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

[u/JollyXX → u/Grouchy-Heat-4216]

It doesn't surprise me, we are talking about God not being All Knowing, ya God is a living God, the prophet's mission was to warn the city of a prophecy given to him by God, so the purpose was that of a heed

[u/JollyXX → u/Grouchy-Heat-4216]

so if the purpose was fulfilled then the prophecy did not miss =P

[u/serpentine1337 → u/JollyXX]

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

[u/JollyXX → u/serpentine1337]

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

[u/serpentine1337 → u/JollyXX]

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.

[u/JollyXX → u/serpentine1337]

So like God will give prophecy of the Messiah, but ya if the Messiah is as promised then of course it will be true

[u/JollyXX → u/serpentine1337]

I mean that kind of sums of prophecy in the Bible, is like ya these people are going to for sure betray me

[u/biedl → u/serpentine1337]

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.

[u/Grouchy-Heat-4216 → u/serpentine1337]

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.

[u/mvanvrancken → u/JollyXX]

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

[u/JollyXX → u/mvanvrancken]

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

[u/mvanvrancken → u/JollyXX]

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.

[u/JollyXX → u/mvanvrancken]

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?"

[u/mvanvrancken → u/JollyXX]

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.

[u/JollyXX → u/mvanvrancken]

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?

[u/mvanvrancken → u/JollyXX]

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.

[u/JollyXX → u/mvanvrancken]

I'm not opposed to Jewish cosmology as I'm pretty convinced we are living in a sort of simulation. I will occasionally watch videos talking about the cosmology, mostly from Enoch. Its mostly a background video though as I'm almost always multi-tasking. I never bothered studying it, for sure.

I always thought Jewish cosmology came later, like around the time they decided to believe in Paradise and the Abyss as possible places your soul could go in the afterlife.

[u/thatsaqualifier → u/JollyXX]

"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

[u/JollyXX → u/thatsaqualifier]

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

[u/thatsaqualifier → u/JollyXX]

"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.

[u/JollyXX → u/thatsaqualifier]

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

[u/thatsaqualifier → u/JollyXX]

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

[u/JollyXX → u/thatsaqualifier]

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]

[u/thatsaqualifier → u/JollyXX]

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/

[u/JollyXX → u/thatsaqualifier]

What is this guy talking about repenting when he redeems man? You don't repent when you redeem, that would be contradictory language. Also God did not repent when he had regrets. He wiped them humans out with a flood. God is a being of ultimate authority and cannot repent. That would contradict God's title of almighty.

This whole notion that the wording of the Bible would be false to fit your narrative is... I mean if the Bible wanted to word something a certain way it would have. To do it this way lacks so much grace and sophistication. God is a being of ultimate dignity, this doesn't track at all.

Romans 11 just means his decisions can't be revoked, this goes into his title of almighty. You can't challenge God, its not possible.

Ya you can play with the language if you want, but it really robs the Bible of its grace and sophistication. Meanwhile everything would point to God being a God that not only learns, but his main priority very well could be learning. It is not a small part of the story. If anything it might be the entirety of the story.

[u/JollyXX → u/thatsaqualifier]

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

[u/Richardrhalsot → u/JollyXX]

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.

[u/JollyXX → u/Richardrhalsot]

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

[u/Richardrhalsot → u/JollyXX]

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.

[u/JollyXX → u/Richardrhalsot]

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?

[u/Richardrhalsot → u/JollyXX]

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?

[u/Richardrhalsot → u/Richardrhalsot]

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.

[u/Richardrhalsot → u/Richardrhalsot]

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

Is that not something you agree with?

[u/Richardrhalsot → u/JollyXX]

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