krazytamak

Is it possible for a theory to support human free will and at the same time say that an all-knowing God exists? I want to know what you all think, but first I'll start it off by explaining why I think it can't be logically possible.

If an all-knowing God exists then, He knows the future, and if He knows the future, then the future already exists. For this belief then, you are assuming a B-theory of time in which the present and future exist (and possibley the past).

If human free will exists, then the future does not already exist. For this belief then, you are assuming an A-theory of time in which the present (and possibly the past) exist, but the future does not it exist. The future only becomes into existence, but at any particular moment, out in front of you is nothing, since it hasn't become yet.

A common rebuttal that is attempted is imagine it is Tuesday and you are thinking about Monday when you had decided to skip lunch instead of eating the lunch. The tuesday-you knows what you decided to do on Monday. Does that mean that the Monday-you had no free will?(meant to be a rhetorical question)

I think that the above rebuttal is faulty though because you are looking at the situation from two different points of view (the Monday-you and the tuesday-you), but those two different points of view are assuming contradictory theories of time.

For example, the Monday-you lives in a B-theory of time where the future exists since there is a Tuesday-you that is able to look back as if it were the all-knowing God.

On the other hand, the Tuesday-you assumes that the past and the present exist, but it says nothing about the future. That means we have 2 choices. If we assume that for the Tuesday-you, the future doesn't exist, then we have an A-theory of time and the two points of views would have contradictory theories of time. Instead, if we assume that for the Tuesday-you, the future does exist, then although the two points of views have the same theories of time, you haven't really rebutted my argument because the Tuesday-you still has to deal with the problem of choosing whether or not to skip lunch on Wednesday despite the fact that the choice has already been made since the future already exists- the Tuesday-you's conscious simply hasn't arrived at the point in time called Wednesday.

I wonder if that makes sense to anyone besides me. Discuss.

Primal

Yes you can if you simply take logic out of the picture.

Silent Acorns

I think the problem here is that to say "Monday-me didn't have free will because Tuesday-me knows what Monday-me did" ignores the fact that free will (assuming it exists) ends the instant a decision is made. Monday-me lost his free will to eat lunch when he decided to skip lunch. Maybe I'm just restating your point in a different way.

I'm still not convinced though that omniscience alone contradicts free will. In my opinion, a god needs to be both the "creator" and omniscient to preclude free will. This isn't much of a problem since I've never run into a theist who thought god was not the creator of the universe.

Taffy Lewis

krazytamak,

If the future does not exist then there is nothing to know. It seems odd to require that God be aware of something that isn't there.

God is aware of everything which is actually the case and which is possibly the case. If the future is at least partially indeterministic then God knows the future as a realm of possibilities.

If we have libertarian freedom then the future is at least partially indeterministic. With regard to our free choices, God is aware of our possible courses of action. There is nothing else to know with regard to our free choices.

tronvillain

Is it possible for a theory to support human free will and at the same time say that an all-knowing God exists? Yes, it is indeed possible. Of course, I certainly do not say that an all-knowing God exists, but it is certainly a possibility.

I deny that "free will" entails a theory of time in which the future does not exist, at least not any form of "free will" worth wanting. All I ask of free will is the ability to make choices, to determine the options available to me and select one of them, and that is perfectly compatible with a view of time which rejects the idea of a unique and moving present.

The best way to put the rebuttal is thus: someone else's knowledge does not affect you at all, so either you had free will before they knew exactly what your decision is going to be and you continue to have free will know that they do, or you never had free will in the first place and do not have it now that they know what your decision is going to be. It doesn't matter whether or not anyone is watching, you either have it or you don't.

What I will not argue is that "free will" in any way absolves God of responsibility for the state of the world, since he created the system with full knowledge of what would eventually be freely chosen given the initial conditions he set. "Free will" does nothing to solve the problem of evil.

Answerer

Oh, do humans have 'free will' in the first place?

luvluv

A) There is no problem of evil.

B) I don't think God is as interested in the state of the world as He is in the spiritual states of the people who chose to make the world what it is. What happens to the world is not as important as what happens to us; what kind of world exists is not as important as what kind of people we choose to be.

tronvillain

A) Yes, there is.

B) The "spiritual states of people" are part of the state of the world that God is responsible for.

Jobar

Hi krazytamak, and welcome.

Free will is a perennial topic around here. If you look back through our archives, you will find dozens, possibly even hundreds, of discussions about it.

My opinion is that free will and omniscience are mutually contradictory, and all the apologists do irreparable damage to one or the other concept in trying to reconcile them.

However, I'm sure some of our theists are willing to tilt once again at this particular windmill.

Taffy Lewis

tronvillain,

It's difficult to see how one can be responsible for some event or state of affairs if one is caused by some other person to bring it about. Would both humans and God be responsible for the "spiritual states of people" or would God be solely responsible? Normally, we think that people are responsible for quite a bit of what they do. And most western theists tend to believe that we are responsible for our "spiritual states".

If someone causes me to do something it seems that they are responsible for the resulting event and not me.