God’s Omniscience and Human Free Will

[Greg Jennings]

Man's feeble attempt to define what we do, and have done and will do. No doubt we are doing something and that is the point. In "our intelligence" we think we can figure things out but we see that even time is relative. But at the end of the day it will come down to our defintions, our perception of the truth and what is the truth? What really is real? I personally have been whole heartedly convinced there is much more than meets the eye.

You're right. That's why there is so much speculation and vastly different schools of thought in physics. We have so much to learn in comparison to what we know

 

[Huckleberry]

I don't buy that.


Sure, I go along wth that. But.
1) I was referring to quantum theory, suggesting that macro events of cause-effect are indeed mental constructs, whilst the reality is of myriad randomly generated quantum events.
2) 4d Space-time is itself a construct. All Einstein is saying is that because light is the reference speed, then all other movement (and communication) is relative. The 4d space-time is just a visual tool that helps some people visualise the effect of relativity.
In reality, time itself is a construct, not because events do not happen sequentially but because they do! Time doesn't flow at 1 hour per hour. It is just an agreement we all make so that we get to work at the same time and so that we can say that the train is late or we arrived early. Clocks don't measure time because time doesn't exist. I am sure that Einstein would agree with this. 4D space time does not mean that time is a physical dimension of the universe. The reason why we are able to conceive of time is that the universe is homogeneous. The same kind of clock works in the same way in one place as it does in another. And give or take a micro-second or three, the Earth rotates at the same speed every day.

Ever get the impression that physicists feel compelled to inject a sense of mystical awe into this sort of thing when they explain it? And that's why so many people are so confused about something that really isn't, or at least shouldn't be, all that difficult to understand?

 

[PureX]

If God foreknows all future things, then everything has to happen in the way that it is foreknown, then those involved have to participate in the way in which they are foreknown to take part. And if those involved have to participate as foreknown, then they are not free to make choices, thus not accountable for their choices.

God’s perfect foreknowledge seems logically to negate true human freedom. The Reformers recognized this by the following quotation from Luther: “For if we believe it to be true that God foreknows and predestines all things, that he can neither be mistaken in his foreknowledge nor hindered in his predestination, and that nothing takes place but as he wills it, then on the testimony of reason itself there cannot be any free choice in man or angel or any creature” [Martin Luther, On the Bondage of the Will, Conclusion].

I don't believe that "omniscience", by definition, must include knowledge of that which has not happened and/or that which does not exist. To include these as part of the definition of the term, would create an illogical and innately contradictory idea for the term to represent, rendering the term meaningless.

Also, it is clear to me, and to most thinking people, that existence includes the phenomena of chance. Not everything that happens is pre-ordained by the various 'laws' of reality. There are many instances in which the influencing circumstances become overwhelmed by the limited possible outcomes, so that the outcome that results really is being determined by chance.

 

[Desert Reign]

Ever get the impression that physicists feel compelled to inject a sense of mystical awe into this sort of thing when they explain it? And that's why so many people are so confused about something that really isn't, or at least shouldn't be, all that difficult to understand?

I have no objection to physicists getting high about their chosen profession. You would certainly balk at some of the things Newton believed. People are confused because a) they are not intelligent enough to understand the workings of relativity or the issues involved in the phosophy of knowledge and b) because they don't care. It's not the responsibility of scientists to make knowledge palatable or comprehensible to the masses, although some of course do make it their responsibility and these tend to be the more outgoing and flowery personalities anyway. You just have to learn to read between the lines.

I don't believe that "omniscience", by definition, must include knowledge of that which has not happened and/or that which does not exist. To include these as part of the definition of the term, would create an illogical and innately contradictory idea for the term to represent, rendering the term meaningless.

Also, it is clear to me, and to most thinking people, that existence includes the phenomena of chance. Not everything that happens is pre-ordained by the various 'laws' of reality. There are many instances in which the influencing circumstances become overwhelmed by the limited possible outcomes, so that the outcome that results really is being determined by chance.

You seem to recognise that talk about God needs to be coherent, just as talk about anything needs to be, which is certainly a good thing. But let me ask you about the bolded part: in that sentence I would have expected 'the various laws of physics (or chemistry)'. Is that what you meant? If not, and you really meant 'reality', then can you give some examples of these 'laws of reality' so that I can understand what you mean?

 

[PureX]

You seem to recognise that talk about God needs to be coherent, just as talk about anything needs to be, which is certainly a good thing. But let me ask you about the bolded part: in that sentence I would have expected 'the various laws of physics (or chemistry)'. Is that what you meant? If not, and you really meant 'reality', then can you give some examples of these 'laws of reality' so that I can understand what you mean?

I realize that my use of that term is a bit awkward, and I considered changing it for a while before I posted. But for me, the 'laws of physics' are as much a matter of our perception of reality as they are anything in and of themselves. Much is made around here of the presumed difference between "objective" and "subjective" reality, but both of these descriptions are being applied to reality as we perceive it. And even the "laws" that we perceive to be manifesting apart from any human being's perception of them are still a concept based on how we human beings perceive and understand our experience of reality. And so they do not entirely escape the parameters of our "subjective" experience and understanding of things.

The bottom line, for me, is that "objective physical existence", and our "subjective perception of" that existence, are still one and the same. So that those "laws" we perceive to be existent apart from our perception of them, are nevertheless still manifestations of our perception of reality, and so are not 'apart' from it. So I let the phrase "laws of reality" stay in the post.

For me, that would be an accurate way of representing them.

 

[lukecash12]

Thank you for answering. However, in order not to let a thread mushroom into lengthy posts with complicated trails, I just want to ask you a specific question about your above statement.

The question is this: Is God real?
Think about it in relation to your above statement. I don't mind you giving me a long answer but I have been deliberately brief just in case the penny drops and you see the light. In case something clicks.

Oh, it clicked right away. It's quite nice to find another sparring partner that can not only keep but set pace.

You're prodding with the observation that if everything ontological, everything real is dependent on God, then how can anything be ontologically true about God Himself? Or more to the point: if God is utterly transcendent, how is that consistent with Him being real?

The only reasonable conclusion I can arrive at here, is that God Himself is the sole ontological axiom. Instead of arriving at the question "is God real", on these grounds we arrive at the question: "Is God reality itself?" Or better yet: "Is God the true meaning of the proposition 'real'."

But let's not be coy with each other: where are you at on this subject? What is a reasonable conclusion to you?

 

[Ktoyou]

God is dynamic, not static! He knows all there is to know.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

And, what would be the point of prayer? Why would God want to hear our requests, our pain, our sorrow? Would not prayer then become an irritant? A form of judgment on our part that we don't like what God has done and is doing?

Do you think you are somehow telling God something He does not already know? Or are you asking for something He has not already determined to give or not give?

Prayer is a means by which we draw nearer to God. God states that we should pray for the following reasons:

1. That the Lord God Himself should be honored through worship. (Isaiah 57:15; Jonah 2:9)
2. For our spiritual blessing, as a means for our growth in grace. (Psalms 116:1)
3. For our seeking from Him the things which we are in need. (James 4:2)

But here (reason #3 above) a difficulty to some presents itself. If God has foreordained, before the foundation of the world, everything which happens in time, what is the use of prayer? If it is true that God is sovereign, that is "of Him and through Him and to Him are all things" (Romans 11:30), then why pray?

Prayer is to acknowledge that God does know of what we are in need. Prayer is not required to inform of God with the knowledge of what we need, but is designed for us to confess to God of our sense of need. In this, as in everything, God's thoughts are not like our thoughts. God requires that His gifts should be sought after. God desires to be honored by our asking, just as He is to be thanked by us after He has bestowed His blessing upon us.

However, the question still remains, If God is sovereign, that is the Ordainer of everything that will happen, and the Regulator of all events, then isn’t prayer a profitless exercise?

One sufficient answer to these questions is that God admonishes us to pray, "Pray without ceasing" (1 Thess. 5:17). And again, "men ought always to pray" (Luke 18:1). Moreover, the Scriptures declare that "the prayer of faith shall save the sick," and "the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much" (James 5:15-16); and Christ, our perfect Example in all things, was foremost a Person of Prayer. Thus, it is evident, that prayer is neither meaningless nor valueless. But this still does not remove the difficulty nor answer the question: What then is the relationship between God's Sovereignty and Christian prayer?

To begin, I would assert that prayer is not intended to change God's purpose, nor is it to move Him to form fresh purposes. God has decreed that certain events shall come to pass through the means He has appointed for their accomplishment. God has elected certain ones to be saved, but He has also decreed that these shall be converted through the preaching the Gospel. The Gospel, then, is one of the appointed means for the working out of the eternal counsel of the Lord; and prayer is another. God has decreed the means as well as the end, and among the means is prayer. Even the prayers of His people are included in His eternal decrees. Therefore, instead of prayers being in vain they are one the means through which God exercises His decrees.

That prayers for the execution of the very things decreed by God are not meaningless is clearly taught in the Scriptures. Elijah knew that God was about to give rain, but that did not prevent him from at once taking himself to prayer (James 5:17-18). Daniel "understood" by the writings of the prophets that the captivity was to last but seventy years, yet when these seventy years were almost ended we are told that he set his face "unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes" (Daniel 9:2-3). God told the prophet Jeremiah “For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for wholeness and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will hear you.” (Jeremiah 29:11-12).

Here then is the design of prayer: not that God's will may be altered (for it cannot), but that it may be accomplished in His own good time and way. It is because God has promised certain things that we can ask for them with the full assurance of faith. It is God's purpose that His will is brought about by His own appointed means, and that He may do His people good upon His own terms, and that is, by the 'means' and 'terms' of entreaty and supplication. Did not Christ know for certain that after His death and resurrection He would be exalted by the Father? Of course He did. Yet we find Christ asking for this very thing in John 17:5: "And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." Did not Christ know that none of His people could perish? Yet He sought God the Father to "keep" them (John 17:11).

It should be remembered that God's will is immutable, and cannot be altered by our pleas. When the mind of God is not toward a people to do them good, it cannot be turned to them by the most fervent and troublesome prayer of those who have the greatest interest in Him: "Then the LORD said to me, "Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my heart would not turn toward this people. Send them out of my sight, and let them go!" (Jeremiah 15:1). Similarly, the prayers of Moses to enter the Promised Land are another example.

So, in summary, we have the answer, namely, that our prayers are in the ordaining, and that God has as much ordained His people's prayers as anything else He has ordained, and when we pray we are producing links in the chain of ordained facts. God decrees that we should pray—we pray; God decrees that we shall be answered, and the answer comes to us.

Prayer does not change God. Prayer changes us.

AMR

 

[Ktoyou]

Yes, prayer is not to inform, or importune.

 

[ttruscott]

God's timelessness is Orthodox theology, so I really don't see this disguise you're talking about. God is not created, hence He isn't constrained by anything the created order is constrained by.

GOD's eternal nature is written about but where is the verse that proves this means HE is 'timeless'? HE is not acting timeless when deals with HIS creation, how do we know HE is timeless pre-creation in eternity?

Do you limit HIM by claiming that the Trinity never sang love songs to each other or told jokes ? all of which need time, creativity and imagination?

 

[ttruscott]

I find the concept of a timeless God to be logical even though i have no clue how God does it or what it's like. it is a leap of faith among many we take as Christians. i disagree that it's the same as asserting He is unable to do 'anything' or 'things' - God doesn't need the structure(s) that our finite minds need, i imagine.

Why bother with this leap if there is no need for it...where is the verse?

 

[Ktoyou]

Prayer does not change God. Prayer changes us.

AMR


:up:

 

[Desert Reign]

The bottom line, for me, is that "objective physical existence", and our "subjective perception of" that existence, are still one and the same. So that those "laws" we perceive to be existent apart from our perception of them, are nevertheless still manifestations of our perception of reality, and so are not 'apart' from it.

Oh, it clicked right away. It's quite nice to find another sparring partner that can not only keep but set pace.

You're prodding with the observation that if everything ontological, everything real is dependent on God, then how can anything be ontologically true about God Himself? Or more to the point: if God is utterly transcendent, how is that consistent with Him being real?

The only reasonable conclusion I can arrive at here, is that God Himself is the sole ontological axiom. Instead of arriving at the question "is God real", on these grounds we arrive at the question: "Is God reality itself?" Or better yet: "Is God the true meaning of the proposition 'real'."

We all seem to be talking about the same thing here. Which is nice! But remember the thread subject was about knowledge.

So here's a piece of knowledge:

Force equals mass times acceleration.

Is this statement real? (This is not the same as 'Is this statement true?') Does this statement really exist?

I used this statement as an example because it is easier than talking about God. I hope you will agree that yes, this statement is real. In form and context, it is a statement about mechanics. Perhaps you would agree that it is one of your 'fundamental laws of reality'. I would prefer the term 'definition of reality'.

It isn't exactly true but it's close enough for our purposes.

Here's some logic:

If some statement, such as the above, is real and the object of such statement (physical objects in this case) are also real, then reality as a whole, must be self-defining. As Purex says, both the things we see and our perceptions of them are the same thing. I would put it like this: reality as a whole is self-defining.

So our knowledge is not simply a collection of statements about something out there. It is a relationship between that thing out there and the rest of what is out there, such relationship being determined by us. And we ourselves, the definers are also part of that same reality. We both define and are being defined. In fact, everything mutually defines everything else. I could define the chair that I am sitting on as a chair. But I could also define it as a stool. Or I could define it as a piece of firewood. The fact that it is a chair does not derive from itself alone. It derives from the relation it has to the table it is next to, to the human beings who make it and use it. So the statement 'This is a chair' isn't an objective fact that is set in stone by any means. The chair would be completely unrecognisable as a chair to some race of beings who had evolved to live in zero gravity in outer space. They do not and cannot know that it is a chair and could never guess its purpose. In their environment it is quite definitely not a chair.
And if I see a thousand leaves falling from trees around me, I don't define this as a thousand events of leaves falling. Rather I define it is one event of a flurry of autumn leaves falling in a gust of wind. But I could define it as a thousand individual fallings of leaves if I wanted to. I could define it as a floating of leaves or a dying of leaves or as pooing time for trees. The important question about God is not whether he knows what we know. It is about what he considers important. Because how we organise the world around us is a function of what we value. Facts (events, , objects, properties, physical laws, etc., etc.) are not absoute things but are relational. For this reason I do not believe it is appropriate to describe God as omniscient.

What I would say is that God, by nature, has access to everything that is real. But what he knows about it, is just as much a choice he makes as what we know is the reflection of how we choose to define the world around us.

That is why I have sometimes said that God knows everything he needs (wants) to know (and that he is as powerful as he needs to be and that he is wherever he needs to be). This is the true meaning of sovereignty, as contrasted with the totalitarianism of the three omnis, which the Calvinists falsely call sovereignty. This is all you need say about him in relation to knowledge to justify that you are talking about God. No other being can say truly that they know everything they need/want to know.

Still with me?

 

[Ktoyou]

What I would say is that God, by nature, has access to everything that is real. But what he knows about it, is just as much a choice he makes as what we know is the reflection of how we choose to define the world around us.

That is why I have sometimes said that God knows everything he needs(wants) to know (and that he is as powerful as he needs to be and that he is wherever he needs to be). This is all you need say about him in relation to knowledge to justify that you are talking about God. No other being can say truly that they know everything they need/want to know.

Still with me?

I am with you here.

 

[Angel4Truth]

I have the foreknowledge that if i offer my child a plate of cookies or a plate of broccoli, which one she will choose, yet i do not force her hand.

 

[musterion]

I'm not taking any side in this but if God exhaustively knows the future, not just what He has said He shall bring to pass but the total existence of every atom in the universe, then that future must already exist. So where is it? Where does it exist? What space does the already-existing future - all of it - occupy?

 

[PureX]

So here's a piece of knowledge:

Force equals mass times acceleration.

Is this statement real? (This is not the same as 'Is this statement true?') Does this statement really exist?

Of course the statement is "real", in that it is a part or aspect of our reality, as evidenced by our mutual acknowledgement of it. Asking if the statement is true, is actually a very similar question, in that the word "true" in this instance refers to an alignment with reality. What is being asked is: does this statement align with our experience of reality? So that in fact, a statement or idea's truthfulness is being determined by it's alignment or adherence to/with reality.

The truth is 'what is'.

If some statement, such as the above, is real and the object of such statement (physical objects in this case) are also real, then reality as a whole, must be self-defining. As Purex says, both the things we see and our perceptions of them are the same thing. I would put it like this: reality as a whole is self-defining.

I agree. And this is, for me, one of the more awesome aspects of existence: that we human beings are an integral part of the mechanism by which existence has become aware of itself!

So our knowledge is not simply a collection of statements about something out there. It is a relationship between that thing out there and the rest of what is out there, such relationship being determined by us. And we ourselves, the definers are also part of that same reality. We both define and are being defined. In fact, everything mutually defines everything else. I could define the chair that I am sitting on as a chair. But I could also define it as a stool. Or I could define it as a piece of firewood. The fact that it is a chair does not derive from itself alone. It derives from the relation it has to the table it is next to, to the human beings who make it and use it. So the statement 'This is a chair' isn't an objective fact that is set in stone by any means. The chair would be completely unrecognisable as a chair to some race of beings who had evolved to live in zero gravity in outer space. They do not and cannot know that it is a chair and could never guess its purpose. In their environment it is quite definitely not a chair.

Exactly. Which is why I tend to view that endless debate about objective vs. subjective morality, and objective vs. subjective truth as an absurd and pointless exercise. The object and subject are united by the same existential phenomena.

The important question about God is not whether he knows what we know. It is about what he considers important. Because how we organise the world around us is a function of what we value. Facts (events, , objects, properties, physical laws, etc., etc.) are not absoute things but are relational. For this reason I do not believe it is appropriate to describe God as omniscient.

Or perhaps it's not appropriate to describe God at all. After all, the term "God" does not refer to a person, who would think as we think (relationally), but refers to an entity that IS thought, that IS knowledge, and that comprehends all, simultaneously and holistically. Our minds cannot cognate this, as it's so far beyond our own experience and ability.

That is why I have sometimes said that God knows everything he needs (wants) to know (and that he is as powerful as he needs to be and that he is wherever he needs to be). This is the true meaning of sovereignty, as contrasted with the totalitarianism of the three omnis, which the Calvinists falsely call sovereignty. This is all you need say about him in relation to knowledge to justify that you are talking about God. No other being can say truly that they know everything they need/want to know.

I would't have worded it quite this way, but I do agree with the assertion of absolute sovereignty. Such that the limits being imposed upon existence are/were selective. And the form and nature of existence that has resulted is the manifestation of intent.

I can't prove this. But I can't deny it, either. Especially as existence does exhibit selective intent almost everywhere we look.

Still with me?

Well, I'm not sure where you're going but I'm enjoying the ride.

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

I'm not taking any side in this but if God exhaustively knows the future, not just what He has said He shall bring to pass but the total existence of every atom in the universe, then the future must already exist. So where is it? Where does it exist?

Exactly my point of why the future has not happened and unless everything is completely orchestrated giving no meaning to anything, then choices are made and God sees the potential outcomes for every choice we make as He convicts us to bring us to the path of love following Him.

 

[PureX]

You're prodding with the observation that if everything ontological, everything real is dependent on God, then how can anything be ontologically true about God Himself? Or more to the point: if God is utterly transcendent, how is that consistent with Him being real?

A living human being exhibits several levels of spectacular transcendence. One, from the realm of matter to the realm of life, and another from the realm of life to the realm of consciousness. Yet neither of these extraordinary examples of transcendency have resulted in "utter transcendence". We are still made up of matter. And we are still life forms with all that entails even as we are also, now, conscious beings. And we are still dependent upon those 'lesser manifestations' of our being (or so it appears).

Is it possible that we might transcend ourselves yet again, and manifest in some realm of existence that is no longer is dependent upon the realms of matter, and of life, and of consciousness, as we are now? We don't know. Certainly most of the worlds religions believe that we do: that we are already such transcendent spiritual beings, but that we have not yet let go of the shackles of our dependency. But in truth we do not know this to be so.

It is the "million dollar question". Where our knowledge runs out, is where our faith begins.

 

[lukecash12]

We all seem to be talking about the same thing here. Which is nice! But remember the thread subject was about knowledge.

So here's a piece of knowledge:

Force equals mass times acceleration.

Is this statement real? (This is not the same as 'Is this statement true?') Does this statement really exist?

I used this statement as an example because it is easier than talking about God. I hope you will agree that yes, this statement is real. In form and context, it is a statement about mechanics. Perhaps you would agree that it is one of your 'fundamental laws of reality'. I would prefer the term 'definition of reality'.

It isn't exactly true but it's close enough for our purposes.

Here's some logic:

If some statement, such as the above, is real and the object of such statement (physical objects in this case) are also real, then reality as a whole, must be self-defining. As Purex says, both the things we see and our perceptions of them are the same thing. I would put it like this: reality as a whole is self-defining.

So our knowledge is not simply a collection of statements about something out there. It is a relationship between that thing out there and the rest of what is out there, such relationship being determined by us. And we ourselves, the definers are also part of that same reality. We both define and are being defined. In fact, everything mutually defines everything else. I could define the chair that I am sitting on as a chair. But I could also define it as a stool. Or I could define it as a piece of firewood. The fact that it is a chair does not derive from itself alone. It derives from the relation it has to the table it is next to, to the human beings who make it and use it. So the statement 'This is a chair' isn't an objective fact that is set in stone by any means. The chair would be completely unrecognisable as a chair to some race of beings who had evolved to live in zero gravity in outer space. They do not and cannot know that it is a chair and could never guess its purpose. In their environment it is quite definitely not a chair.
And if I see a thousand leaves falling from trees around me, I don't define this as a thousand events of leaves falling. Rather I define it is one event of a flurry of autumn leaves falling in a gust of wind. But I could define it as a thousand individual fallings of leaves if I wanted to. I could define it as a floating of leaves or a dying of leaves or as pooing time for trees. The important question about God is not whether he knows what we know. It is about what he considers important. Because how we organise the world around us is a function of what we value. Facts (events, , objects, properties, physical laws, etc., etc.) are not absoute things but are relational. For this reason I do not believe it is appropriate to describe God as omniscient.

What I would say is that God, by nature, has access to everything that is real. But what he knows about it, is just as much a choice he makes as what we know is the reflection of how we choose to define the world around us.

That is why I have sometimes said that God knows everything he needs (wants) to know (and that he is as powerful as he needs to be and that he is wherever he needs to be). This is the true meaning of sovereignty, as contrasted with the totalitarianism of the three omnis, which the Calvinists falsely call sovereignty. This is all you need say about him in relation to knowledge to justify that you are talking about God. No other being can say truly that they know everything they need/want to know.

Still with me?

Oh, I'm with you, monsieur. I've been wanting to get back to this, but it's quite a loaded subject. My response is forthcoming, rest assured.