Before the fact versus after the fact. By "fact" I mean the choice we made and the outcome. Before the fact our options are many. We are free to choose as we please. But after the fact it is a done deal. We cannot go back and alter the fact. There is only one fact after the fact.

If it is known in advance exactly what we will choose (of the many options available to us) then the future is one future. However, such knowledge, before the fact, does not mean our options were limited to one. But it does mean that the outcome, after the fact, will be one. It also means, in spite of the many options available to us before the fact, that we will certainly choose the one that yields the known outcome.

It should be clear, though, that we were free, before the fact, to choose the one option that yields the known outcome. Knowing the outcome in advance in no way robs us of our options or our ability or freedom to choose as we please. God's knowledge of the future does not rob us of our options. Instead, it reflects the outcome of our freedom to choose as we please. God not only knows in advance all of our options and all of the outcomes, He also knows exactly which option we will choose and the exact outcome.

I've pointed out quite a number of times that the issue is ontological (having to do with being) not epistemological (having do to with knowledge). You correctly deduce, given your hypothesis, "then the future is one future." Then you write, "However, such *knoweldge* ...." The problem is not knowledge!

If the future is one future, then the problem is one of *being*. That is, the reason we can't make more than one choice is because there is "one future." If we could make some other choice, other than the one future choice, then there would be more than one future. One future = one choice.

Really, this should be very easy to see.

One future = one choice.

No, I don't claim this. I claim God *does* have prefect foreknowledge of the future. I claim that the future is not a single-threaded thing, comprised of just certainties, but is instead more complicated, being comprised of possibilities as well as certainties.

Where we disagree is in regards to the nature of the future, not the nature of God's foreknowledge. We both agree that God has perfect foreknowledge.



No, I don't claim this either. Actually I'm not following this, since you say, parenthetically, that I say that free will would be out the window. If I'm saying free will would be out the window, then clearly the future being fixed has something to do with our actions, right?



No, I don't claim that God's knowing the future perfectly would mean the future is fixed. As I've pointed out many, many times, I believe God does know the future perfectly. God knows the future perfectly, just as it is, which is not fixed. Once again, our difference of opinion is regarding the nature of the future, not regarding God's foreknowledge.



I'm not following you here. At any rate, your question seems to be predicated on things I haven't been claiming, so there's probably no need for me to comment further, regarding this question, than that.

Because you claim that this is one definition of free will, and the other definition of free will is having multiple choices which are not mutually exclusive.

I am telling you that your two definitions of free will are nonsense.

Your nonsensical definition:
Quote:
There are two main ways, theologically, that free will can be defined. One is that you are free to choose to do one of more than one mutually exclusive events (e.g., you can spill water on your shirt or not). The other is that you are free to do that which you choose to do.


Now, follow along ...

According to you, two definitions of free will:

1. choice between two mutually exclusive options
2. free to do that which you choose to do

If a person is faced with a choice to either drink or not to drink (two mutually exclusive choices ... cannot both drink and not drink), you are saying that free will is defined one way. (definition #1). So, tell me then, why doesn't definition #2 apply? How is this person not free to do which he chooses to do (i.e. drink or not drink).

Now that same person is faced with a different choice ... the choice of wearing a white shirt, a blue shirt, or a red shirt. Furthermore, will this person wear the black tie, the blue tie, or the grey tie? Now these choices are not mutually exclusive, therefore we must be looking at definition #2, so now you are now suggesting that somehow the true definition of free will has somehow changed, just by virtue of the type of choices the person is faced with!

These are not my definitions. They are standard. One is a definition of incompatible (also called libertarian) free will, and the other of compatible free will.

Here's a place to take a look which presents the definitions I've been referring to in more detail:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

Why are you making this point about how many times the cock would crow?! No one was talking about that!!

I don't remember. It's been quite a while since I posted this.

And knowing Peter's character cannot tell you how many times Peter would deny Him. Character cannot tell you that. Neither can character tell you that it would happen before the cock crowed. All character would tell you is that when/if given the opportunity, Peter would deny Jesus. Character cannot give you all the prophetic details that Jesus prophesied.

Ok, I think I see the point now. Even the gospel writers do not agree amongst themselves regarding the detail of the story, so how many times the cock crowed, or how many times Peter would deny Christ, was evidently not the important point. The important point was that Peter would deny Christ.

As to how Christ knew that, I'm sure God revealed this to Him. As to how God knew this, God has perfect foreknowledge, and saw what Peter would do.

Originally Posted By: Tom Ewall
Say there are a trillion possible futures, as of the time Jesus was speaking to Peter. In all of those trillion futures, God saw that Peter would deny Christ before the cock crowed some number of times. There is no logical problem with God's being able to predict the future, and there being more than one possible future.
It would not matter how many possible futures there could be ... if Peter denied Jesus in all of them, the future would be just as fixed as if there were only one future.

If, as according to you, the future would have to be fixed if God knew exactly how it would play out as if He could see Peter denying Jesus on a TV rerun, then Peter's denying Jesus would be just as fixed for Peter even with a trillion futures, all of which have him denying Jesus.

What difference is there between:

A) One single "fixed" future in which Peter denies Jesus and has no choice in the matter because (according to you, Tom), free will is out the window.

and,

B) Having an "open" future and having free will and being faced with choosing between the following possible futures:

1. Deny Jesus
2. Deny Jesus
3. Deny Jesus
4. Deny Jesus
5. Deny Jesus
6. Deny Jesus
7. Deny Jesus
8. Deny Jesus
9. Deny Jesus
10. Deny Jesus
...
...
...
1 trillion. Deny Jesus

Originally Posted By: Tom Ewall
I've never argued that God cannot see the future perfectly,
Sure you have ... that is what this whole thread has been about.

You argue that if God knew the future perfectly (sometimes likened unto seeing it as a TV rerun), then the future must be fixed (but not by God's foreknowledge), and that free will is out the window (i.e. we would have no affect on the future).

Are you getting senile on us?

I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying, and you're not being very kind. If you're really wanting to discuss this in a civilized manner, I'll be happy to oblige. I can also point you to references on line where you can read more about the subject. This isn't something I've made up.

Originally Posted By: Tom Ewall
I've never argued that God cannot see the future perfectly, only that the future is not fixed,
But no one (except for you) ever said anything about the future being fixed. You've been trying to use the fact that the future is not fixed to prove that God does not know the future perfectly, that He is only a very good guesser when He makes these exacting, precise, prophecies.

Originally Posted By: Tom Ewall
... which is to say, there is no one future. There are many possible futures, which is exactly what God sees. He doesn't see the one future of what will happen, because there is no such thing.
So, there is not just one future ... hmmm ... so then there are parallel universes or time lines, one for each possibility.

I mean no disrespect by this, but I must ask: Do you watch a lot of StarTrek?

I like to watch it too, but I don't believe that there are multiple futures, one in which I chose to take a drink, and another in which I chose not to take a drink.

I'm sorry you're having difficulty understanding me. Perhaps reading someone else would be easier. If you google "partly open future" you can find some good material.

I skipped this one inadvertently, so I'm responding to it out of order.

DenBorg: Just because God sees the future perfectly for what it will be, does not mean that the future is predetermined by God.

Or course not. This has not been asserted.
But you have asserted that it means that the future "is predetermined".

The only possible agents that cause the future to be what it is are:

1) our choices/actions; and,
2) God's choices/actions.

But you say that our free will would be out the window, so that would mean we have no affect on the future. And logically the only remaining cause of the future is God's choices/actions.

Unless you can identify and substantiate a third agent that causes the future to be what it is. But, WOW! What could be more powerful than God?

I'm not really following you here. For one thing, it's been quite a while since I originally posted this, so it's difficult to remember my train of thought from that far back. I'll repost what my argument is, and if you wish, we can discuss that.

If we accept the libertarian definition of free will, a person can be said to have free will if he has the ability to "do this" or "do that". That is, if there is a fork in the road, they have free will if they have the ability to take either fork.

If the future is fixed, then that means it is certain that they will, for example, bear left (not go right). If it is certain that they will bear left, then they do not have the ability to bear left (it's not possible to do something different from what is certain to happen). This is what causes free will (under the libertarian definition, which is the one commonly used by SDA's) to go "out the window."

Please notice that this argument is not dependent upon God's foreknowledge (in fact, I didn't reference God at all in the argument).

Originally Posted By: Tom Ewall
If God knows the future perfectly, and if it isn't our free will nor God's foreknowledge which determines/fixes the future, then what does fix it in this case?

Nothing fixes it. It's not fixed. It's open.
I know nothing fixes, that it is open.

But YOU have claimed numerous times that if God knew the future perfectly, then the future would have to be fixed. And it was from this context that my comment was made, and you know it. So don't suddenly try to "play dumb".

I have never claimed this. You've gotten the wrong idea somehow, and keep repeating it, but I've never said this.

So according to you, Tom, assuming that God knows the future perfectly, what fixed the future?!

This is assuming a premise that is untrue.

And unless you have evidence of some third party, you cannot arbitrarily claim that it was neither us (because we would have no free will) nor was it God (because His foreknowledge does not fix the future), that it must be some sort of unidentified more-powerful-than-God entity for which you have no evidence.

You cannot rule out both our own choices/actions, and also God's choices/actions as determining agents on what the future looks like without any evidence that shows some third agent coming into play.

Again, this whole line of reasoning is predicated on something I have never claimed.

Originally Posted By: Tom Ewall
I have not previously said that God's foreknowledge requires the future to be fixed. Actually I think I know what you mean, but you're not being very precise in stating it. It would probably be a good idea to quote something directly, then comment on that, rather than repeatedly make assertions that I've said things I haven't said.
Yes you have, Tom. Quit playing dumb.

You know full well that you have repeatedly made statements that claim that if God knew the future perfectly (as if He could see it as a rerun), then we have no choice concerning our future actions and the future is fixed.

Are you wishing to recant all such statements of yours?

No, but I would like it if you were kinder in tone. Also I think you could be read my posts more attentively. Before attacking a point of view you may not have properly understood, I think it would be better to start off by ask clarifying questions.