TE: Therefore a definition of free will which depends upon both A and B being doable is logically inconsistent.

MM: Inconsistent? You mean because “B” is logically impossible?

Yes.

TE: You have sort of addressed this by suggesting a definition of free will which is logically consistent with your viewpoint that only A is possible.

MM: Please don’t misunderstand me. It’s not my viewpoint.

The definition of free will which you gave as your understanding of what free will is not your viewpoint? I don't understand that. You told me what you thought free will meant. I'm pointing out that what you think free will means (according to what you said) is consistent with the other things you have been saying. This is only your viewpoint that I was discussing when I made this comment.

I’m only going along with it until we can discuss pertinent details. If “B” is impossible I do not count it as an option, so far as free will is concerned. If both “A” and “B” are equally doable, then we have the ability and freedom to choose either one.

Well, this is the question. If God knows that A will happen and not B, is B doable?

TE: The definition that you suggested, that one has free will if one has the ability and freedom to do what one chooses, is consistent with all the above.

MM: I agree.

TE: The definition of free will that I used in the beginning of this topic, that free will means one can do either of A or B, is logically consistent with none of this way of thinking, especially D).

MM: I disagree. Hopefully we can discuss this in more detail. Let me know when you’re ready.

Go ahead. Explain how the definition of free will as being able to do A or B is logically consistent with the idea that A must happen and not B.

(snip)

TE: Well, this is the question. If God knows that A will happen and not B, is B doable?

MM: “B” was doable before the fact, but not after the fact. God’s ability to watch it happen before it happens does not limit what is doable before the fact. Watching a rerun and knowing what will happen before it happens does not limit what could have happened, that is, assuming other options were humanly possible.


MM: Again, if “A” must happen, then “B” is not an issue. The equation does not elicit the question. However, it is important that we understand why “A” must happen. What is the basis of our information?

TE: That is, even if you asked God Himself what would happen to a certain particle, He would say, "Well there's an x% chance it will do A, a y% chance it will do B" and so forth.

MM: I disagree. God is not simply a super-gifted statistician. He’s not just another great guesser. God is omniscient. He knows everything. Again, unconditional prophecy is positive proof. The Revelation is not a compilation of great guess work, of what God thinks is most likely going to happen in the future. No way. Instead, it accurately describes precisely what will happen. No doubt about it. There is no possibility that things will play out differently, not even in the least detail. From atoms to ants to mankind, God knows exactly how and what everything will do in the future.

TE: Well, this is the question. If God knows that A will happen and not B, is B doable?

MM: “B” was doable before the fact, but not after the fact.

Before what fact? God's seeing it? There is no before that! God has always known that A will happen, so there was never a time when B was doable.

God’s ability to watch it happen before it happens does not limit what is doable before the fact.

Again, what fact are you talking about? His watching it happen, right? There is no time before when this happened, hence, again, no time when B was doable.

Watching a rerun and knowing what will happen before it happens does not limit what could have happened, that is, assuming other options were humanly possible.

There's only one future to watch, and hence only one thing that could possibly have happened, which is precisely what God saw happening.

MM: Again, if “A” must happen, then “B” is not an issue. The equation does not elicit the question. However, it is important that we understand why “A” must happen. What is the basis of our information?

B is an issue because the whole question is if it's possible for one to do B. That's the question that started the whole thing! If we define free will as the ability to do A or B, then B is most assuredly an issue.

You might not have noticed this, by *my* point (and I'm the one who started the topic!) is in regards to free will, not God's foreknowledge (at least, not directly; it *is* directly concerned with free will).

Now if you wish to use a definition of free will where B is not an issue, then, OK, you can say B is not an issue. But if you have a definition of free will which involves B, then B is an issue!

TE: That is, even if you asked God Himself what would happen to a certain particle, He would say, "Well there's an x% chance it will do A, a y% chance it will do B" and so forth.

MM: I disagree. God is not simply a super-gifted statistician. He’s not just another great guesser. God is omniscient. He knows everything. Again, unconditional prophecy is positive proof. The Revelation is not a compilation of great guess work, of what God thinks is most likely going to happen in the future. No way. Instead, it accurately describes precisely what will happen. No doubt about it. There is no possibility that things will play out differently, not even in the least detail. From atoms to ants to mankind, God knows exactly how and what everything will do in the future.

You're free to disagree with quantum physics, but I was just making a comment about the physics. The part you are commenting on was explaining that the theory of quantum physics is statistical not because of a lack of knowledge (if we knew more, we could say where the particles go; we use statistics because we don't understand the underlying mechanism) but because of the essential nature of the particles themselves; that is, they act statistically. That's the theory.

Isnt the idea about quantum particles that you can either know where they are or where they are going but that it is physically impossible to know both of these at the same time?

Assuming I remember this correctly, can God know something that is not knowable?

Prophecy is not evidence that he knows it like that.

Are you saying that the way we know the future, is the way God knows the future?

There is no twist. All the way along we are talking about salvation and not things.

But you MM, indeed have a twist. In your mind it seems that hope translates to doubt since you said: "God does not doubt...or wonder or question". Those are not activities of hope. Faith is the opposite of doubt, and hope is the opposite of despair. You seem to think that hope and doubt are harmonious and faith and despair go together. To think that doubt, wonder, and question are the activities of hope is indeed a twist.

• Rom 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
• Rom 15:13 Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Spirit.

I hope you consider the scriptures.

I might have muddied up the issue by mixing Heisenberg with the double-slit. I'll stick to Heisenberg this time, and leave probability functions for another time.

For those not familiar with it, here's a very rough summary: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that the more accurately you know an object's position, the less accurately you will know its velocity (and vice versa). IOW, the more you know about where something is, the less you know about where it's going. For "big" and "slow" things, it doesn't really matter. But for things about the size and speed of an electron, it matters a lot.

Bro Tom, here's my simple Yes/No question, to find out your thoughts on God's omniscience (not even touching foreknowledge yet). Given a specific electron, does God know exactly (taking the physics definition that measurement error can be arbitrarily small) both its velocity and position?

I would say yes, God can know both, because His knowledge is not bound by being able to observe things.

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle involves our limitations based on observing things. If we could know a particles velocity (or position) without observing it, then we would be free to observe it's other property without a problem. (by problem, I mean, without violating the Heisenberg uncertainty principle).

Interesting question! I had to think a bit about that one.

I'll remark a bit further. The reason for the Heisenberg principle is that you cannot observe an object's behavior without changing it. In the case of an electron, you need to apply energy in some way to see where it is (in the form of light, for example), or how fast its going, which impacts its position and velocity. So while you're observing one thing, you're impacting the other.

In the case of big objects, as you pointed out, the impact is minimal. (Light hitting us doesn't impact our velocity or position much, like it would for an electron). However, it's interesting to note that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle has had implications in the social sciences. (People change their behavior when you observe them).

Have you heard of Heisenbugs, Arthur?

JB: You cannot know that he knows it like that; but you can know that he does not know it like that, as I have plainly shown.

MM: I disagree. Unconditional prophecy is evidence God knows the future like a rerun. Otherwise, He would be able to foretell it.

JB:Prophecy is not evidence that he knows it like that.



"I have purposed it, I will also do it." This is an explanation of how God can know what's going to happen in the future.