I'm reposting this, because I didn't get any responses, and I've very interested in knowing what others think about this.




Does this make sense to anyone besides MM? Especially I'm interested if anyone thinks the following statement makes sense, "But from our perspective it hasn’t happened yet, so our options are many, not in theory, but in reality."

Even though God knows what choice we will make before we even make it, it still remains our choice to make.

Yes, but we can only make the choice He knows we will make. This is my point in noting the contradiction between defining free will as the ability to do either of mutually exclusive events. This is not possible. We can only choose to do what God knows we will do. You can't validly argue that if we would choose to do something different, then God would have foreknown it differently, because God foreknows the event *before* we make our choice.

That is, God knows at 11:00 what choice we will make at 12:00, but we haven't made the choice yet. So before we are even aware of what our choice is, what we will do is already certain. The event has already been determined before we have taken action.

Now the definition of free will which MM has suggested *is* logically consistent with this view of the future (only one possibility, known ahead of time by God. He suggests that one has free will if one is able to choose and perform that which one wishes to do. (not his exact words, but that's the idea). With this definition, it is not necessary that one be able to do either of multiple events which are mutually exclusive, only that one be able to do the particular event which one wishes to do.

No Tom, it isn't "Yes, but we can only make the choice He knows we will make." It is "Yes, but we will only make the choice Her knows we will make."

Can you do something you won't do? Isn't the only answer to this you could if you wanted to? That gets back to MM's definition of free will, which is that free will is being able to do what you want to do.

Everything you're saying implies that this is the definition of free will you want to use (MM's, not mine). The fact that you can't accept "can't" eloquently brings this out.

My definition is the ability to do (i.e. "can" or "can't") either A or B.

Responding to this in another way, what I've been bringing out is that if God knows you will do A and not B, then it must be the case that A will happen, and not B. Now if A will happen and not B, then you not only won't do B, but you can't. Isn't that clear? Otherwise you'd have to be able to do something which can't happen, which is impossible.

Yes, if God knows that I will do A is because He knows that I will choose A. If I choose A, which God knows I will choose, then I can't/won't do B. My freewill isn't compromised whatsoever. God didn't make me choose A. The choice to choose A was still mine to make. The only thing on God's part is that He knew in advance that I would choose A. This makes perfect sense to me.

It depends on how you define free will, which has been my point all along. If you define free will as you're being able to do A or B, then that's clearly wrong because, as you have recognized, you won't/can't do B.

It's not a matter of your free will being compromised anyway. That's a wrong way of discussing the issue, because that's never been the issue. God does nothing to force you to one thing or the other. Your free will isn't "compromised" by God's knowledge of the future. It simply doesn't exist, if it's defined as being able to do A or B.

What you really have is the ability to *think* you can choose A or B. That is, as MM puts it, from your perspective you have two options. However, from God's perspective, you don't. You only have one. So if God's perspective reflects reality, then you only have one option, even though you feel as if you had two.

Anyway, my point is that free will should be defined in a way which is logically consistent with the view of the future that we take. If we take the view that only A can happen and not B, then our definition of free will should agree with this idea (like the definition MM suggested).



This definition is logically consistent with the view of the future that you, Rosangela and MM have been suggesting. It is not logically consistent with the definition of free will which I suggested, which is the ability to do either A or B. Obviously if we can't/won't do B, we do not have the ability of doing either A or B.

TE: [A] Therefore God knows [the future] as open, meaning that He knows every possible thing that can happen. I would say this is knowing. [B] Anyway, my answer would be no, there's nothing of which God is ignorant.

MM: “A” and “B” above are not compatible. According to this theory God doesn’t know ahead of time exactly what will happen. Knowing a zillion possible outcomes only means God is the ultimate smartest guesser.

TE: You're assuming that God can't know what will happen ahead of time unless the future is fixed. I don't agree with your assumption.

MM: God knows what will happen in the future because He knows it like watching a rerun. There is nothing “fixed” about it.

……………………….

TE: I'm not understanding your point. Are you saying that if the future is open and not fixed, that means God can't know it? Well, you say, He doesn't know "exactly" what will happen. It sounds like you're just restating what we're discussing. Is the future open or fixed? Your correct that if the future is open, God can't know "exactly what will happen," if by "exactly what will happen" you mean what would happen if the future were fixed.

MM: From God's divine hindsight perspective the future is neither fixed nor open - it is what it is.

TE: It's obviously fixed if He can look at it like a T.V. rerun. Imagine watching an old I Love Lucy rerun you've seen dozens of times, and all of a sudden Lucy starts doing something different. That's not possible, right? Why not? Because what Lucy will do is fixed. If the T.V. rerun analogy holds, then the things which God is watching are as fixed as Lucy's behavior.

MM: You are taking the analogy too far. We’re talking about God, not me or you watching a rerun of I Love Lucy.

……………………………

MM: The definition of free will, as I understand it, is that we possess the ability and freedom to do as we please.

TE: This definition is logically consistent with the view of the future that you [Daryl], Rosangela and MM have been suggesting. It is not logically consistent with the definition of free will which I suggested, which is the ability to do either A or B. Obviously if we can't/won't do B, we do not have the ability of doing either A or B.

MM: First of all, I qualified my definition of free will. We are born in slavery to sin, self, and Satan. As such we are not truly “free” to do as we please. We are not free to sin until we are free from sin. We must be born again and abide in Jesus to be truly free.

Secondly, your argument does not take into consideration whether or not God tells us in advance what we will do or will not do in the future. If God doesn’t tell us then His hindsight knowledge of it does not affect us in the least. Our “options” are many, not in theory, but in reality. If He does tell us then we will do it because we love Him.

TE: [A] Therefore God knows [the future] as open, meaning that He knows every possible thing that can happen. I would say this is knowing. [B] Anyway, my answer would be no, there's nothing of which God is ignorant.

MM: “A” and “B” above are not compatible. According to this theory God doesn’t know ahead of time exactly what will happen. Knowing a zillion possible outcomes only means God is the ultimate smartest guesser.

TE: You're assuming that God can't know what will happen ahead of time unless the future is fixed. I don't agree with your assumption.

MM: God knows what will happen in the future because He knows it like watching a rerun. There is nothing “fixed” about it.

What is not fixed about a rerun?

……………………….

TE: I'm not understanding your point. Are you saying that if the future is open and not fixed, that means God can't know it? Well, you say, He doesn't know "exactly" what will happen. It sounds like you're just restating what we're discussing. Is the future open or fixed? Your correct that if the future is open, God can't know "exactly what will happen," if by "exactly what will happen" you mean what would happen if the future were fixed.

MM: From God's divine hindsight perspective the future is neither fixed nor open - it is what it is.

According to you, like a rerun; this is, fixed.

TE: It's obviously fixed if He can look at it like a T.V. rerun. Imagine watching an old I Love Lucy rerun you've seen dozens of times, and all of a sudden Lucy starts doing something different. That's not possible, right? Why not? Because what Lucy will do is fixed. If the T.V. rerun analogy holds, then the things which God is watching are as fixed as Lucy's behavior.

MM: You are taking the analogy too far. We’re talking about God, not me or you watching a rerun of I Love Lucy.

The T.V. rerun is your analogy. If you don't mean something which cannot change by "T.V. rerun," what do you mean?

……………………………

MM: The definition of free will, as I understand it, is that we possess the ability and freedom to do as we please.

TE: This definition is logically consistent with the view of the future that you [Daryl], Rosangela and MM have been suggesting. It is not logically consistent with the definition of free will which I suggested, which is the ability to do either A or B. Obviously if we can't/won't do B, we do not have the ability of doing either A or B.

MM: First of all, I qualified my definition of free will. We are born in slavery to sin, self, and Satan. As such we are not truly “free” to do as we please.

What does one please to do before being converted, if not sin? How is one not free to do what one pleases?

We are not free to sin until we are free from sin.

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

We must be born again and abide in Jesus to be truly free.

How does this tie in with a definition of free will? What do you think free will means?

Secondly, your argument does not take into consideration whether or not God tells us in advance what we will do or will not do in the future.

Of course not. Whether or not God tells us something about the future has nothing to do with any argument I've presented.

If God doesn’t tell us then His hindsight knowledge of it does not affect us in the least.

Your assuming here that the only thing God could do to affect our future is to tell us about it, which is, of course, not true. God can do many things to affect our future besides communicating with us about it.

Our “options” are many, not in theory, but in reality.

If "many" meant "one," as in "A" in the example we've been discussing, then this would be true.

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

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