Ask Knight (Archived)

[poogle]

Originally posted by Knight

So here is where the philosophy hits that dead end. I cannot convince you that perfect foreknowledge removes true freewill even though your own description of foreknowledge being compatible with freewill abuses the very definition of foreknowledge itself.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree or we could also investigate God's word and see what He has to say on the topic.

Perhaps you could point out where my definition of foreknowledge or free will is incorrect.

Just so that there isn't any confusion, here are definitions of each that I believe to be true.

Foreknowledge - knowledge or awareness of something before its existence or occurrence; prescience.

Free will - The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.

If you can't point out where my definitions are incorrect then please point out where they are incompatible because I don't see how they would be.

God has knowledge of what has not yet happened. John Doe has free will to do whatever he wants regardless of what God knows he is already going to do.

Where is the incompatibility?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Jabez

lol Thank you, Knight..All i was tring to say,in that other post was,somethings we cant figure out or make sense of because they are not for use to make sense of...Thats all

OK... I see your point now... I do not think THIS is one of "those things".

Not to mention....
Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by Knight

I do not think God is illogical in any way whatsoever.

Do you think God is supposed to make perfect sense to an imperfect/fallen mankind?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by poogle

Perhaps you could point out where my definition of foreknowledge or free will is incorrect.

Haven't we already done that like five times now?

You continue...

Just so that there isn't any confusion, here are definitions of each that I believe to be true.

Foreknowledge - knowledge or awareness of something before its existence or occurrence; prescience. I AGREE

Free will - The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.I AGREE

If you can't point out where my definitions are incorrect then please point out where they are incompatible because I don't see how they would be.

They are only incompatible if you assert they can both exist together.

It's all in your own definitions....
Let's review....

Free will - The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.

Yet foreknowledge CONSTRAINS those choices because.....

Foreknowledge - knowledge or awareness of something before its existence or occurrence; prescience.

Therefore your foreknowledge definition would be the constraining factor upon the will that would not allow it to be free.

Can you show me otherwise?

You continue....

God has knowledge of what has not yet happened. John Doe has free will to do whatever he wants regardless of what God knows he is already going to do.

Where is the incompatibility?

It's right there! It's right in your own sentence that you just typed!

God knows what John Doe will do therefore John Doe can ONLY do what God knows.

Can you show me otherwise?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Lucky

Do you think God is supposed to make perfect sense to an imperfect/fallen mankind?

I don't know what you mean by "perfect sense".

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I will be back a in a while. :chew:

 

[poogle]

Originally posted by poogle Illogical? Seriously now. From a scientific perspective was the Virgin birth and the physical bodily resurrection logical or even possible? No, but they happened anyway didn't they.

Originally posted by Knight

You continue...There is NOTHING illogical about any of that.


God is SUPERNATURAL. And could do any of that.

Just because we are incapable of doing what God does that doesn't render God illogical.

Correct, from a biblical perspective the virgin birth and the resurrection are not only logical they had to have happened the way they did. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and guess that you didn't see the "From a scientific perspective" part.

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by Knight

I don't know what you mean by "perfect sense".

You don't understand me, but you understand everything there is to know about the Creator of the universe? That makes perfect sense!

:darwinsm:

 

[poogle]

Originally posted by Knight

Haven't we already done that like five times now?

Actually no. You agree completely with the definition of free will and you agree completely with the definition of foreknowledge. What I think you may be referring to is that you have asserted that free will and foreknowledge are incompatible, not that their definitions are incorrect.

You continue...They are only incompatible if you assert they can both exist together.

It's all in your own definitions....
Let's review....

Free will - The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.

Yet foreknowledge CONSTRAINS those choices because.....

Foreknowledge - knowledge or awareness of something before its existence or occurrence; prescience.

Therefore your foreknowledge definition would be the constraining factor upon the will that would not allow it to be free.

Can you show me otherwise?

You continue.... It's right there! It's right in your own sentence that you just typed!

God knows what John Doe will do therefore John Doe can ONLY do what God knows.

Can you show me otherwise?

:bang: And you were so close too. :doh:

Remember the postknowledge bit a few posts back? It works just like that.

Let me rephrase your statement to make sense from my perspective.

Your statement - God knows what John Doe will do therefore John Doe can ONLY do what God knows.

My statement - John Doe DOES and then God KNOWS. But God KNOWS in advance of John Doe actually DOING.

I admit - THIS IS NOT LOGICAL FROM A SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE, but neither is the virgin birth or the resurrection.

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by poogle

I admit - THIS IS NOT LOGICAL FROM A SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE, but neither is the virgin birth or the resurrection.

:thumb:

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by godrulz

It is a logical contradiction, an absurdity.

The Trinity would be considered a logical contradiction, an absurdity, too. But we know the triune nature of God is a reality and true.

An omniscient Being cannot know a nothing (free will moral choices do not exist before they are made to be known).

Does God know the free will decisions of man in the future, in light of Book of Revelation?

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by Knight

Freewill probably didn't play a part in my desire to like chocolate.

Probably? Are you not sure? Do you choose to like chocolate?

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Freak

The Trinity would be considered a logical contradiction, an absurdity, too. But we know the triune nature of God is a reality and true.

Does God know the free will decisions of man in the future, in light of Book of Revelation?

The Trinity is a revelation of the nature of God that we would not come up with by reason alone, yet it is not unreasonable. It is not an absurdity or logical contradiction like asking if God can make a rock so heavy He cannot lift it, or if God can make a square circle. These are not parallel examples.

The book of Revelation shows that God will bring much of the future to pass by His ability. Other verses show another motif that free will moral choices of specific moral agents are not known as a certainty until they are made (He knows them correctly as a possibility).

 

[poogle]

Ok, let me put forth a hypothetical situation...

Lets say that I built a time machine before John Doe was born. With the help of the time machine and a cloaking device, I am able to travel into the future and document every choice that John Doe makes in his life. For this hypothetical situation lets assume that John Doe has free will when making his choices.

After John Doe dies, I go back to the time before John Doe was born. I now know every choice that John Doe will make in his life. Will he have free will?

Technically, by the definition of free will, John Doe will not have free will. He will be constrained not by my knowledge of what his choices will be, but by his own choices that he already made when I had traveled into the future to observe them.

Back to reality...

God exists outside of time as we know it, therefore, God can observe the choices that John Doe will make in his life. Because God exists outside of time, God will have the perfect exhaustive foreknowledge of John Doe's life before John Doe is even born.

John Doe has free will. God has perfect exhaustive foreknowledge. Free will and foreknowledge are not incompatible with each other. John Doe is not constrained by God's foreknowledge. If anything John Doe would be constrained by his own choices. If you want to say that because John Doe is constrained by his own choices then yes, I agree he does not have free will. But it is not because of God knows what John Doe will do.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Jabez

This is my take.Job 11:7 Can you Fathom the Mysteries of God?Can you probe the limits of the Almighty?

Job 11 is Zophar talking. He was giving his human advice to Job and was later rebuked by God. His statement is generally true, but not God's wisdom at the moment for Job.

Issues of omniscience, foreknowledge, predestination are revelations of truth about God and creation found in Scripture. A cogent theology can and should be developed. Calvinism tends to relegate things that appear contradictory to the 'mystery or will of God". A better approach would be to interpret Scripture literally and bring in philosophical considerations if necessary. The science of modal logic, for example, helps shed light on these issues (possible worlds, etc.).

It is initially difficult to see some of these issues due to exposure to one pre-conceived theology only. Once one wrestles with these issues and sees why foreknowledge of future free will moral choices and free will are mutually exclusive, the lights go on and seeming contradictions become clear and logical.

Knight has seen the light (and it is frustrating when others cannot at the moment).

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by poogle

Ok, let me put forth a hypothetical situation...

Lets say that I built a time machine before John Doe was born. With the help of the time machine and a cloaking device, I am able to travel into the future and document every choice that John Doe makes in his life. For this hypothetical situation lets assume that John Doe has free will when making his choices.

After John Doe dies, I go back to the time before John Doe was born. I now know every choice that John Doe will make in his life. Will he have free will?

Technically, by the definition of free will, John Doe will not have free will. He will be constrained not by my knowledge of what his choices will be, but by his own choices that he already made when I had traveled into the future to observe them.

Back to reality...

God exists outside of time as we know it, therefore, God can observe the choices that John Doe will make in his life. Because God exists outside of time, God will have the perfect exhaustive foreknowledge of John Doe's life before John Doe is even born.

John Doe has free will. God has perfect exhaustive foreknowledge. Free will and foreknowledge are not incompatible with each other. John Doe is not constrained by God's foreknowledge. If anything John Doe would be constrained by his own choices. If you want to say that because John Doe is constrained by his own choices then yes, I agree he does not have free will. But it is not because of God knows what John Doe will do.

This is based on the assumption that time is a thing or is the same as space/place. The 'eternal now' concept of God was influenced by pagan Plato and Philo through Augustine and Calvin. The Scriptural view is that God exists in an endless duration of time which is unidirectional. The future is not a line that God is above, seeing or experiencing all at once. The future is not there to observe and it is no deficiency for Him to not know or see it. If the future had already been recorded as a fact, then God could see it without causing it (Arminianian argument= foreknowledge; Calvinistic argument= predestination; Open Theism= future is open and unknowable in every detail).

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by poogle

Correct, from a biblical perspective the virgin birth and the resurrection are not only logical they had to have happened the way they did. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and guess that you didn't see the "From a scientific perspective" part.

Again... even from a scientific perspective none of what you mentioned is illogical (emphasis on illogical). God is SUPERnatural and therefore not bound by physical laws, that has nothing to do with logic.

Something illogical would be like a four sided triangle.

While the Bible does present God as SUPERnatural..... to my knowledge the Bible never presents God as SUPERlogical as in, NOT logical.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by poogle

I admit - THIS IS NOT LOGICAL FROM A SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE, but neither is the virgin birth or the resurrection.

I couldn't disagree more.

Nothing about the virgin birth or the ressurection is illogical assuming God truly is SUPERnatural.

We might classify these things as miraculous or amazing or divine but not illogical.

 

[Jabez]

Is it fair to say we in the flesh cannot know that of the spirit,only through the spirit?What i mean is,we must have the spirit of truth in us in order to understand spirital things.Without the spirit of truth not much makes sense..Is that fair to say?

 

[poogle]

Originally posted by godrulz

Issues of omniscience, foreknowledge, predestination are revelations of truth about God and creation found in Scripture. A cogent theology can and should be developed. Calvinism tends to relegate things that appear contradictory to the 'mystery or will of God". A better approach would be to interpret Scripture literally and bring in philosophical considerations if necessary. The science of modal logic, for example, helps shed light on these issues (possible worlds, etc.).

It is initially difficult to see some of these issues due to exposure to one pre-conceived theology only. Once one wrestles with these issues and sees why foreknowledge of future free will moral choices and free will are mutually exclusive, the lights go on and seeming contradictions become clear and logical.

Knight has seen the light (and it is frustrating when others cannot at the moment).

I assume that you are referring to me when you state that "it is frustrating" when others can't see the light.

I apologize for being frustrating but I am trying to learn here and don't intentionally mean to be.