If God knows you will choose A, then you can't/won't choose B, so B is not an option. I'm not discussing whether your free will is compromised. That's never been an issue I've discussed. My only point is that, if one wishes to be logically consistent, if one has a view of the future in which only A can happen, then one should have a definition of free will in which only A can happen. Like the one MM at first suggested.

TE: We are not free to sin until we are free from sin?

MM: That's right. Apart from Jesus, all we can do is sin. We cannot not sin. We are natural born slaves of sin, self, and Satan. As such, until we are born again, we have one choice - to accept Jesus as our personal Savior.

...................

MM: If He does tell us then we will do it because we love Him.

TE: Or we might not, if we have more than one option.

MM: Born again believers abiding in Jesus have many options. Since they truly love God they will do what He, from His perspective, saw them doing.

TE: We are not free to sin until we are free from sin?

MM: That's right. Apart from Jesus, all we can do is sin. We cannot not sin. We are natural born slaves of sin, self, and Satan. As such, until we are born again, we have one choice - to accept Jesus as our personal Savior.

This sounds just like Calvinism. Except, given this assumption, we couldn't even choose to accept Jesus as our personal Savior, if all we can do is sin.


...................

MM: If He does tell us then we will do it because we love Him.

TE: Or we might not, if we have more than one option.

MM: Born again believers abiding in Jesus have many options. Since they truly love God they will do what He, from His perspective, saw them doing.

Except they can only do A, since that is what God has seen will happen. So they, just like those who are not born again, have one option.

You're trying to introduce elements which have nothing to do with the issues.

a)If God sees that A will happen, then A must happen, and not B.
b)Therefore a person (or any other thing or being) can/will only do A, not B. It makes no difference whether the person is born again or not, or even if the thing is a person, or being.

Regarding what MM has said, I understand him to be saying that from God's perspective, there's one choice, A, but from man's there's A and B. MM has affirmed several times that man's options are real options, not theoretical ones. This means that there are multiple realities (since from God's perspective, the reality is that A will be chosen; there is no B, as MM puts it).

Now if God tells someone about the future, then man's perspective changes, and hence his reality. This would explain why something which I view as irrelevant (whether or not God has told man what will happen; to my way of thinking that has no impact on the future) would be important to MM, given that the future is dependent upon our perspective.

Have I expressed your point of view correctly, MM?

Regarding my point that if only A can happen, then our definition of free will should reflect this, I don't know what anyone else's opinion on this is, who has been arguing for the only A can happen future. Agree? Disagree? If disagree, why?

I've been thinking about this the last couple of weeks, and it's still not clear to me.

Consider this. I set up a double-slit experiment where I will send only one electron toward the slits. There being only one particle in question, there will be no interference pattern. In keeping with QM, the probability of it landing in any particular spot is described by its wave function (which can be thought of a "smeared" all over the place). But when it does land, wherever that may be, there is a 100% probability that it will be there (i.e., it is not "smeared" all over the place after impact).

Humanly speaking, we have no idea exactly where it will land before it actually lands. You seem to be saying that God also does not know. Am I right?

If that's the case, can we say that God knows the end from the beginning, even in just this experiment? When I start it by shooting the electron, it doesn't seem that God knows how it will end.

Of course, He knows all the possible outcomes, and their corresponding probabilities. But then, so do we (by using Dirac's equation). We also know what's possible and what's probable. What we don't know is what will happen. IOW, we don't know the end from the beginning. Is God in the same boat?

I'm going to answer in general things, just suggesting some possibilities.

First of all, I believe the laws of Physics in terms of describing the motion of particles apply to God as to us. So if God designed a given particle to work probabilistically, then that's how it works. So if you ask God what will happen, then He will respond with the appropriate probabilistic explanation. It wouldn't be right to suggest to Him, "If you can't tell me exactly where the particle will be, then you can't see the end from the beginning" because God could respond that He was telling you how He created the particles, and what they will do, which is exactly what they were designed to do. Indeed, the question is implying that in order for God to know what will happen, He must design things deterministically. But everything about our world suggests that God does not like determinism; He prefers spontaneity, even in inanimate objects.

The other point I wanted to mention is that even though it's not determined what a particular particle will do, that doesn't mean the larger picture must be unclear. For example, we know with great precision what certain chemical or physical processes will do, even though we don't know specifically what individual particles will do.

Fair enough. I don't think any of us can say that we know for sure what is going on. But we can consider the possibilities.



Even if the laws of physics apply equally to God and us, there is no reason to believe that we have a full knowledge of what those laws are. In fact, one of Einstein's arguments against QM was that things seem probabilistic to us only because there are hidden variables of which we are ignorant.

Just as we now see Newton's formulations as only approximations, that work very well in the realm of common experience, QM might eventually turn out to be approximations. It is possible that what we know think of as probabilities will turn out to be more definite, if we knew more about how things really work.

EGW put it this way:

It took a week to get to Heaven according to the EW quote. Maybe that's figurative. But if it's literal, then we have problems with the known laws of physics.

There's nothing within 7 light days of earth. The nearest star is 7 light years away. So if they travelled at the speed of light, they wouldn't get to any place interesting. If we count 7 days from the earth's frame of reference, they had to travel faster than light. That's impossible as far as we know.

But maybe the 7 days is from the travellers' frame of reference. With time dilation and enough energy for rapid acceleration (assuming the people were miraculously protected from being crushed by the acceleration), it is possible to get anywhere in 7 days. But even then, the trip would still take a very long time from earth's point of view. (The Orion Nebula is about 1500 light years away.)

But check this out: "At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to show thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision. (Daniel 9:23)

Gabriel was commanded to go to Daniel at the beginning of his supplications. Surely, Daniel's supplications did not last 1500 years, which would be required if Gabriel was limited by the speed of light.

But let's say that Gabriel is massless, since angels are spiritual beings. That would remove the "infinite energy" needed to accelerate a massive object to the speed of light, and also the "imaginary mass" required to exceed the speed of light. Even then, he still would violate causality by transmitting information faster than light. That's still a problem.

Then consider the amount of lead time needed to get from Heaven to earth, in order to arrive on time for the 2nd Coming. That implies that the time of the 2nd Coming has to be set thousands of years in advance, messing up the "spontaneous" theory. Either that, or Heaven is going to be empty while everybody hangs around somewhere in the solar system, waiting for humanity to get ready for the harvest. But that would move the sanctuary from Heaven to somewhere around here. That would be problematic, I think.

As I see it, inspiration tells of things that violate the known laws of physics. I'm constrained to believe that we don't know the laws very well.

Another possibility is that God is not bound by the same laws that govern mortals. Since He is fundamentally different, it is not impossible that His existence is fundamentally different.



But isn't that the nature of the sure word of prophecy? What God says is 100% true. If He says something will happen, it is going to happen. Regardless of the causal factors involved, His word is sure. Therefore, if He said it, then it is "determined" to happen (whether He caused it to happen or He knew how the actors would choose, the outcome is the same).

If that wasn't the case, then prophecy loses its authority. God said that sin will not arise again. Is that just the most probable scenario given all the possible scenarios? Or is that a guaranteed fact?

But if sin comes from a creature's choice to disobey his Creator, how can God guarantee that no creature will ever choose disobedience? Will He take away the ability to choose? I doubt it.

So how can God know for sure? Or is it just a best guess from Him? But if QM is right, then given enough opportunity, every possible event, no matter how improbable, will eventually happen. If you let neurons bounce around for eternity, one will eventually bounce the wrong way. Mathematically speaking, sin must arise again.

I see a problem here.



That's true. But you know, there is a non-zero probability of the sun suddenly turning into a bowl of petunias. Even though we're pretty sure it won't happen tomorrow, given eternity, it eventually will. So, even though we know precisely what will probably happen, we can never be 100% sure. So says Quantum Mechanics.

Regarding the first part of your post, of course my statement that the laws of physics apply to God incorporates the idea that these are the laws of physics as they actually are, not according to whatever wrong thinking we might have about them. I wouldn't think that would need to be pointed out. Also, God is not a finite being, so when we are talking about His interaction with things, there could be (is) a great deal that we simply don't know about what's going on.



The way you're phrasing things here sounds like the way fundamentalists/Calvinists look at things. I don't know what your background is on these things, so don't want to repeat a bunch of arguments you may already be familiar with. But as a very short answer, if you read Jeremiah 18, you can see that what you are asserting in the last sentence here is exactly what the Israelites were asserting. You can note that God's answer does not agree with constructing His statements in a deterministic way.



Not arbitrarily, which you seem to be implying here. IOW, what will happen will happen, not because God says it will, but because God tells the truth. He knows how things work, being the creator. But God has created beings with free will who can act contrary to His will, so conditionality is implied in much of what God says, of which Jonah is a classic example, and of which Jer. 18 speaks to in detail.



The authority of prophecy is not an arbitrary authority. God doesn't operate that way. His authority is based on principles of truth. If God were to lie about the way things work, then prophecy would lose its authority. But God does not predetermine what's going to happen, nor is what He says will happen destined to happed, of which Jonah is a classic example.



God can see everything that will happen. If in the virtually limitless possible futures, sin never arises, God can "guarantee" that sin will not arise again.



Of course God won't take away the ability to choose. Without choice, love would be impossible. God can "guarantee" what will happen because He knows every possible future.



We have free will. We've seen the Great Controversy. We've seen the love of God revealed in Christ. We are more than simply neurons bouncing around. I don't see the problem.

Originally Posted By: Tom Ewall
The other point I wanted to mention is that even though it's not determined what a particular particle will do, that doesn't mean the larger picture must be unclear. For example, we know with great precision what certain chemical or physical processes will do, even though we don't know specifically what individual particles will do.



Eventually the sun will turn into a bowl of petunias? First of all, it's not possible for the sun to turn into a bowl of petunias. A zero probability, even given eternity, remains a 0 probability.

Secondly, your assertion is not allowing for the fact that the universe changes, which affects the probabilities. For example, it was possible for sin to arise in the past, but not in the future (in terms of probability, not in terms of capability). Why? Because the Great Controversy changes things.



This seems like apples and oranges here. There's a finite number of possible things that can happen. They can be enumerated. God knows what they all are. If none of them involve the sun turning into a bowl of petunias, then God can affirm with absolute certainty that this event won't happen, without violating any laws of quantum mechanics.

Bro Tom,

Thanks for the reply. I will respond when I have a bit more time. For now, I want to gauge how close we are.

Conditional and probabilistic are two entirely different concepts.

Do you agree with that statement?

For example, I can tell my son that if he purposely punches his sister, I will punish him. The outcome is conditioned on his choice. Therefore, the punishment is conditional.

But there is nothing probabilistic about the punishment. I will do everything I can to guarantee that his choice will determine with 100% certainty what the outcome will be. In that sense, it is fully deterministic.

The only places where probability comes into play is whether or not he will choose to purposely punch his sister and if I can detect it. But the uncertainty lies in my knowledge of his character. The more I know his character, the more certain I will be of his choice, even before he makes it.

Does that make sense?