krazytamak

Christians believe in a God that knows the future but most also believe that people have free will. These two beliefs seem inconsistent to me since if God knows the future, then the future already exists, and although you may feel you're making your own choices, your free will is an illusion to you if the future already exists. Does anyone know how a Christian apologist may apologize for this apparent inconsistency? Also, is the free will belief actually rooted in the Bible?

Marduk

There are tons of 'free will' arguments in the 'Existence of God' forum. (you can do a search)
I think the whole free will thing IS apologetics, The Fall, Adam & Eve etc. how God gets off sending people to hell, all later Christian stuff. The OT God of the Hebrews often seems rather clueless, Where's Adam at? These people suck, I think I'll drown em all! No, wait a minute, I'll just drown most of em, I'll save that 500 year old drunk and his wife, and the animals, they're kinda cute.

Vinnie

There are various views espoused by apologists. Open view theists posit the future is not entirely known by God. Some apologists claim middle knowledge, some claim total knowledge. If you want to debate open view theism you can go to Greg Boyd's site. Last I was around that part of the web the majority of posters seemed to be open view theists and they will argue the position. Boyd, who is one major advocate of the view, posts on the board. I am not certain of my stance now. It seems uninportant in light of other things I am currently researching.

Boyd's site = <a href="http://www.gregboyd.org" target="_blank">www.gregboyd.org</a>

"""""The OT God of the Hebrews often seems rather clueless, Where's Adam at? These people suck, I think I'll drown em all! No, wait a minute, I'll just drown most of em, I'll save that 500 year old drunk and his wife, and the animals, they're kinda cute. """"""

Of course, the accounts of the fall and the flood probably made perfect sense theologically to those who heard them thousands of years ago. Your facetious criticism of Genesis amounts to little more than saying the accounts were not written by secular humanists.

Vinnie

Marduk

"Your facetious criticism of Genesis amounts to little more than saying
the accounts were not written by secular humanists."

Oh I guess, but I still don't think 'free will' or 'the fall', in the Christian sense of original sin, were ever a part of the original writers intent or even part of Hebrew scripture.

sidewinder

I think that religious Jews interpret "the fall" as an example of Man turning away from God. They do not interpret "the fall" as the entrance of original sin into the human race. (BTW, Muslims do not believe in the doctrine of original sin either.) I think both Judaism and Islam teach that Man is free to choose to do right or wrong. They do not believe that Man is "infected" with original sin. In fact, Islam teaches the human life is a test from God (Allah).

As far as free will is concerned, from my purely amateur scientific viewpoint, it does appear that we have some amount of free will. We are limited by those things which are genetically programmed within us. Plus, free will seems to be very strongly influenced by environment.

I think there is a line of teaching within the NT which claims that God chose who would be saved. In Romans, Paul states that God made some to be saved and others for destruction. I'm assuming that there is where the Christian belief in predestination comes from. In this line of teaching, there is no free will. God already planned the whole history of humanity out, and being God with the powers it's claimed he has, how could humanity turn out any differently from God's plan? We are just puppets for God's amusement. Maybe God is like a playwright who wrote a long play (i.e. human history) and now he's watching it being acted out. Perhaps it's exciting for him to see his work being acted out.

Vinnie

""""""Oh I guess, but I still don't think 'free will' or 'the fall', in the Christian sense of original sin, were ever a part of the original writers intent or even part of Hebrew scripture.""""""""

I've never been sure of what exactly original sin is. Actually, I know what it is, maybe I just never understood the concept. I definately do not see the account of the fall as literal history and I am not sure the general Christian view interprets it correctly. Some views that say I am accountable for the sinning of Adam and Eve in a Garden thousands of years ago are ridiculous to me. Scientifically, I'd have trouble accepting Adam and Eve as the first humans even if the account was to be taken as literal history. I personally think most Christian doctrine on the fall is "harmonized" on the preconceived notion that the Bible is inerrant. For example, "Paul saw the event as historical so we must too." Of course, to many the fall underlies various Biblical teachings on sin and redemption and that makes it highly important to them. My views of the fall make me a heretic in the eyes of many Christians but I'm not losing any sleep over it. My interpretation of the fall could very well be wrong but I understand it as "we sin."

""""""As far as free will is concerned, from my purely amateur scientific viewpoint, it does appear that we have some amount of free will. We are limited by those things which are genetically programmed within us. Plus, free will seems to be very strongly influenced by environment.""""""

I agree with you here, sidewinder. I accept the idea of free will but its obviously not 100% free. I don't have the Free Will to fly into space like Superman or not. This is how I see it:
H + E + FW = A
or
Heredity + Enviroment + Free Will = Human Act

Vinnie

Wayne Delia

I'm fairly familiar with the problem of Free Will vs. Omniscience. It's my experience that most apologists combine a red herring (an explanation of how God acquires the knowledge of future outcomes) with an argument by assertion (God knows what choices we will freely make). Since it's assumed that God is perfectly omniscient, knowing all outcomes of future choices with perfect accuracy, an explanation of how He arrived at that knowledge (i.e. "God is outside of time, observing all events externally" or some variation thereof) is irrelevant. And the argument by assertion (simply repeating the desired conclusion that our choices are freely made in the presence of an omniscient God) is easily refuted. A choice involves the potential selection of one alternative among two or more logically available alternatives. Assume we have A, B, and C presented as logically available alternatives, and assume that C qualifies as a sinful choice. If God knows that someone will choose C (since God is assumed to be perfectly omniscient), then the person cannot possibly choose A or B - because to do so would render God wrong, contradicting the premise that God is perfectly omniscient. If a person cannot possibly choose A or B, then they are not logically available alternatives. Similarly, if an omniscient God is assumed, there are no logically available alternatives other than the single action which God knows (with perfect certainty) will be chosen.

Perhaps the only true sin is to somehow manage to choose an alternative which God knows won't be chosen. That, of course, would negate God's omniscience. And if God's omniscience is refuted, then any book of the Bible containing future prophecy - like the entire Book of Revelation, for example - would be worthless. "And there was a beast with seven heads and ten horns, with swords coming from its mouth, or maybe not, I could be wrong, who knows, your guess is as good as mine." That loses a lot of presumed authority if God-inspired prophecy isn't necessarily right (in order to preserve human free will).

WMD

ShottleBop

There's always William Lane Craig's approach, based on counterfactuals, which places heavy weight on the distinction between cannot and will not:
<a href="http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/hasker.html" target="_blank">http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/hasker.html</A>

Atticus_Finch

Free will and omniscience are not mutually exclusive. The problem people have with this concept is based on the fact that WE are trapped in the here and now. God, however, the theory goes, can view all of history, both past and future, as if it had already occured.

You can know today exactly what you did yesterday. You know that when faced with a decision with options A, B and C, you chose option C. Does your knowledge today of the fact that you chose C yesterday mean that your choice yesterday was not free? No it does not. Likewise, God's knowledge of what you will chose tomorrow does not mean that your choice lacks free will.

You do not have to accept that God is omniscient or that man has free will, but it is wrong to say that Christian belief in both of them is inconsistent.

Regards,

Finch

krazytamak

finch,
i've heard this before but it is incorrect because by using alternating reference points you are able to employ two different theories of time that inherently conflict with each other.

as for your example, i'll label your days as day 1 and day 2 instead of yesterday/today. now, you did have free will when you chose C because the future, that is day 2, didn't exist yet. however, if you were to travel back in time though, starting from day 2 and go back to day 1, you would no longer have free will because your future (day 2) would already exist.

Free will requires that the future doesn't exist. This is an A-theory of time (different variations can have it so that the past and present both exist or just the present but that doesnt' matter for us)

Omniscience (and time travel to the past) requires a B-theory of time, that is the past present and future exist already.

The reason the theories are inconsistent is because one says the future exists and one says it doesn't. I don't think your example really addresses this.

Try to think of a theory of time first. Then see if you can fit both omniscience and free will into the same theory of time. If you can let me know.