Theists: How can predetermined fate and free will coexist?

[Tonus]

1) Exactly. Do you think I am suggesting that it is not similar with god? God knows our suffering, and so he decides to save us.

I am questioning the method. If God had any capacity for sympathy, he would not have needed to experience all of human suffering in order to feel compelled to do something about it. And the way he has gone about it since then would indicate that he doesn't really understand the concepts of sympathy or mercy.

4) Did it look that easy? In fact, it looked like a failure of a life... ending in a humiliating execution.

How was it a failure? Jesus did not sin. He proved his point. The humiliating execution was something he visited upon himself. Nothing stopped him from simply discarding the human body and returning to godhood.

5) Exactly! He promises you that your own suffering and death, in whatever form they take, will be followed by a similar refreshed return.

But he could have avoided that suffering and death for me altogether by making a more sensible decision from the beginning.

6) Says who?

The men who beat Jesus up and hung him on a cross will not be sent to hell for eternity?

8) Because in that tiny blink of a half a day of torment, every single torment in creation was visited upon him. Now, through those sufferings, we have a connection with the divine. "The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if only we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him" -Romans 8:17

That's a bit of a stretch, IMO. I don't see how this implies that Jesus suffered every torment in creation. Nor do I see how such an over-the-top experience would provide a balanced perspective on what it's like to be a human being. And I still don't see how any of it was necessary for God to provide humanity with a better fate.

9) He already knew that we were in a bad state before Christ. It was exactly because he knew this that he sent his Son into the world as a human. His knowledge of our tragedy is why he came to save us from it.

I would expect him to have knowledge of our tragedy, since he authored it. From that perspective, it's not impressive that he saved us from it. Or that he will, eventually.

10) To show us that his transcendence does not mean that he is far from us when we suffer. He is close to us always, and especially when we suffer and sin. So close in fact, that he endures that suffering and the effects of those sins himself.

I realize I'm repeating myself here, but he didn't have to endure these things in order to be close to us. He created us, right? He knows us inside and out. Our condition is the direct result of a curse he placed upon all of humanity as penance for the crime two other people committed and paid the penalty for. We shouldn't be suffering at all.

14) That's the good news. He's fixed things, and that fix has spilled over into our reality.

Maybe he claimed to have fixed things, but they don't look fixed. People still suffer, people --and nature-- still visit horrors upon one another, people still walk that wide path to destruction, and so on. This could have been stopped right from the beginning, but instead there were centuries of suffering followed by the implementation of a bizarre fix that hasn't taken effect two thousand years later. We live in a world that resembles one where there is no god, and explanations like the ones above sound like attempts to account for that. It's just not convincing to me.

[robvalue]

There seems to be some confusion regarding my scenario.

I'm addressing the claim put forward by many theists that it is possible for a being to know our future before it happens, while we retain free will.

So I'm making the assumption that it's possible to have knowledge of the future. The future. Different timelines have been mentioned. If God only knows one possible eventuality in advance, then he does not know the future. He only knows one possibility. And that's not difficult. So I'm disallowing mutliple timelines for this thought experiment, because it makes the theistic claim meaningless in the first place. It makes precognition meaningless. (If someone wants to challenge that, feel free.)

So to make it simpler, God shows up in front of you, and tells you that in the next 10 seconds, you're going to walk slowly towards and then through the red door. He has seen it already, and he knows it to be true. Can you ignore him and instead walk towards and through the blue door in the next 10 seconds? Or are you compelled to obey, and to do as he has predicted?

If you're a theist and you don't claim that God can see our future beforehand, then you have nothing to address here. There is no contradiction, and free will is coherent. God cannot truthfully make such a proclamation, and so you can ignore him; at least partially.

Some people still seem to treat the future as if it's constantly changing. Precognition is meaningless if that is the case. God can't know the future if he has to wait and see what happens up until that point before finally knowing what will actually happen. That's simply called observing. Go watch the Minority Report, where the only people who can change the future are the police, for some reason.

[Ignorant]

I am questioning the method.  If God had any capacity for sympathy, he would not have needed to experience all of human suffering in order to feel compelled to do something about it. [1] And the way he has gone about it since then would indicate that he doesn't really understand the concepts of sympathy or mercy. [2]

How was it a failure?  Jesus did not sin.  He proved his point. [3] The humiliating execution was something he visited upon himself.  Nothing stopped him from simply discarding the human body and returning to godhood. [4]

But he could have avoided that suffering and death for me altogether by making a more sensible decision from the beginning. [5]

The men who beat Jesus up and hung him on a cross will not be sent to hell for eternity? [6]

That's a bit of a stretch, IMO.  I don't see how this implies that Jesus suffered every torment in creation.  Nor do I see how such an over-the-top experience would provide a balanced perspective on what it's like to be a human being. [7] And I still don't see how any of it was necessary for God to provide humanity with a better fate. [8]

I would expect him to have knowledge of our tragedy, since he authored it.  From that perspective, it's not impressive that he saved us from it.  Or that he will, eventually. [9]

I realize I'm repeating myself here, but he didn't have to endure these things in order to be close to us.  He created us, right?  He knows us inside and out.  Our condition is the direct result of a curse he placed upon all of humanity as penance for the crime two other people committed and paid the penalty for.  We shouldn't be suffering at all. [10]

Maybe he claimed to have fixed things, but they don't look fixed.  People still suffer, people --and nature-- still visit horrors upon one another, people still walk that wide path to destruction, and so on.  This could have been stopped right from the beginning, but instead there were centuries of suffering followed by the implementation of a bizarre fix that hasn't taken effect two thousand years later.  We live in a world that resembles one where there is no god, and explanations like the ones above sound like attempts to account for that.  It's just not convincing to me. [11]

1) As I've said many times: God did not need to experience all of that suffering. You have it backwards. 

His capacity for sympathy is exactly what moved him to do something about our suffering. What did he do? He saved us by and through suffering with us. Why? Because he was revealing that he wants to be close to us, even amidst our suffering and sin. 

He saved us as a human so that in one sense, God saves us, and in another sense, we humans actually participate in our own salvation. We aren't damsels in distress. God saves us through Jesus's human action. When we are united in Jesus, we participate in our own salvation. Why? Because Jesus suffers with us.

2) What is sympathy and mercy, as you understand them?

3) Well yes. I said it looked like a failure, because it ended in public execution. Not exactly an expectation of the Christ. But if he tells us that even a perfect life won't avoid suffering (even his didn't)... how easy does a perfect life appear?

4) Exactly. He could have done that. What does it tell us that he chose to remain united to his humanity even in the face of suffering?

5) Ah, we come to it. Had you been god, you would have done it differently. Fair enough.

6) No, not necessarily. There is nothing God is not willing to forgive. He would gladly forgive the men who killed him if they asked for the forgiveness. "Do I indeed derive any pleasure from the death of the wicked? says the Lord GOD. Do I not rather rejoice when he turns from his evil way that he may live?" -Ezekiel 18:23

7) I presented that passage regarding the idea that we have been given access to the divine life, here and now, through our suffering.

8) It wasn't necessary at all. It is simply the way that God wanted to carry out in a way that 1) saves, 2) allows us to participate in our own salvation, and 3) reveals the reality of that salvation all at the same time.

9) Impressive? Maybe not. Good news for us? I think so, given that he didn't have to.

10) He cursed us? Or did he create a world in which we curse ourselves... only to enter into that world so that we could give us his own power with which we can heal ourselves?

11) Fair enough. Like I said, Christians live in-between worlds. In one sense, as you have well described, this world is passing away from its own corruption (both moral and physical). We live in that world. God, however, will renew and heal and restore our dying world some day in the future. The good news, is that this future expectation has come to our present world in the spiritual sense. We can live with the divine life in a real but incomplete way, here and now. I understand that doesn't convince you, and I truly appreciate your responses.

---

---

There seems to be some confusion regarding my scenario.

I'm addressing the claim put forward by many theists that it is possible for a being to know our future before it happens, while we retain free will.

So I'm making the assumption that it's possible to have knowledge of the future. The future. Different timelines have been mentioned. If God only knows one possible eventuality in advance, then he does not know the future. He only knows one possibility. And that's not difficult. So I'm disallowing mutliple timelines for this thought experiment, because it makes the theistic claim meaningless in the first place. It makes precognition meaningless. (If someone wants to challenge that, feel free.)

---

So to make it simpler, God shows up in front of you, and tells you that in the next 10 seconds, you're going to walk slowly towards and then through the red door. He has seen it already, and he knows it to be true. [1] Can you ignore him and instead walk towards and through the blue door in the next 10 seconds? Or are you compelled to obey, and to do as he has predicted? [2]

If you're a theist and you don't claim that God can see our future beforehand, then you have nothing to address here. There is no contradiction, and free will is coherent. God cannot truthfully make such a proclamation, and so you can ignore him; at least partially.

Some people still seem to treat the future as if it's constantly changing. Precognition is meaningless if that is the case. God can't know the future if he has to wait and see what happens up until that point before finally knowing what will actually happen. That's simply called observing. Go watch the Minority Report, where the only people who can change the future are the police, for some reason.

1) Like I asked before: Does he know that I will choose to do this? Is my CHOICE part of what he knows? As God, that seems to be within his power to know.

2) If he infallibly KNOWS that I will CHOOSE to walk through the red door in that moment, then I will absolutely and definitely CHOOSE to walk through that red door. I don't see the problem that creates for the reality of the choice?

If he infallibly KNOWS that I will NOT CHOOSE to walk through the red door, but I will walk through it anyway, then I will absolutely and definitely walk through the red door without having chosen it.

So you have to be specific about the content of the precognition. Does it include the reality of choosing the red door or not?

[robvalue]

---

There seems to be some confusion regarding my scenario.

I'm addressing the claim put forward by many theists that it is possible for a being to know our future before it happens, while we retain free will.

So I'm making the assumption that it's possible to have knowledge of the future. The future. Different timelines have been mentioned. If God only knows one possible eventuality in advance, then he does not know the future. He only knows one possibility. And that's not difficult. So I'm disallowing mutliple timelines for this thought experiment, because it makes the theistic claim meaningless in the first place. It makes precognition meaningless. (If someone wants to challenge that, feel free.)

---

So to make it simpler, God shows up in front of you, and tells you that in the next 10 seconds, you're going to walk slowly towards and then through the red door. He has seen it already, and he knows it to be true. [1] Can you ignore him and instead walk towards and through the blue door in the next 10 seconds? Or are you compelled to obey, and to do as he has predicted? [2]

If you're a theist and you don't claim that God can see our future beforehand, then you have nothing to address here. There is no contradiction, and free will is coherent. God cannot truthfully make such a proclamation, and so you can ignore him; at least partially.

Some people still seem to treat the future as if it's constantly changing. Precognition is meaningless if that is the case. God can't know the future if he has to wait and see what happens up until that point before finally knowing what will actually happen. That's simply called observing. Go watch the Minority Report, where the only people who can change the future are the police, for some reason.

1) Like I asked before: Does he know that I will choose to do this? Is my CHOICE part of what he knows? As God, that seems to be within his power to know.

The question of whether you have choice or not is what is up for debate here. If you simply state that you still have choice, even when he knows your future, then you are begging the question. I'm asking a theist who believes in this to explain how there is any possible choice that can be made.

He knows you will do it, as claimed by many theists. (You appear to have claimed this before.) Whether or not you have any geniune choice to make is what is up for grabs.

He knows the outcome. I don't understand what relevance it is how the outcome is achieved, be it an apparent "choice" or otherwise. There is only one thing that can happen, eventually.

2) If he infallibly KNOWS that I will CHOOSE to walk through the red door in that moment, then I will absolutely and definitely CHOOSE to walk through that red door. I don't see the problem that creates for the reality of the choice?

I'm asking if you can instead choose to walk through the blue door. Can you do this? If not, and you must "choose" to go through the red door, then what choice is it? You have only one option, which you must choose. How is that a choice?

If he infallibly KNOWS that I will NOT CHOOSE to walk through the red door, but I will walk through it anyway, then I will absolutely and definitely walk through the red door without having chosen it.

Uhm.... I don't understand. He knows you won't walk through the red door, but you will walk through it without having chosen it? I have no idea what this means. What do you mean you haven't chosen it? How else did it happen?

So you have to be specific about the content of the precognition. Does it include the reality of choosing the red door or not?

The whole question here is whether there are any meaningful choices to made, given that God has precogntion. As you're the theist, you can define precognition any way you want. If you can demonstrate that God knows what I will do yet I still have a meaningful choice, then you'll have defeated my objections. If you're happy for simply following one course of action even though there are no other possible ones to be called a "choice", then we're only arguing semantics. I don't see the difference between this and a robot or even a rock "choosing" to do things. We have (at least the illusion of) consciousness and the sense of control; it doesn't mean we are really making any meaingful choices at all.

If you want to assume from the start that I do have meaningful choices to make, then I'd like to know how God can know, in advance, what I will choose. I don't mean how is he powerful enough, but I mean how can the knowledge be available.

I'm only trying to mimic theistic ideas of precognition. To me, the idea is ludicrous.

[Ignorant]

---

The question of whether you have choice or not is what is up for debate here. If you simply state that you still have choice, even when he knows your future, then you are begging the question. I'm asking a theist who believes in this to explain how there is any possible choice that can be made.

He knows you will do it, as claimed by many theists. (You appear to have claimed this before.)

---

Whether or not you have any geniune choice to make is what is up for grabs. [1]

I'm asking if you can instead choose to walk through the blue door. Can you do this? If not, and you must "choose" to go through the red door, then what choice is it? You have only one option, which you must choose. How is that a choice? [2]

Uhm.... I don't understand. He knows you won't walk through the red door, but you will walk through it without having chosen it? I have no idea what this means. [3]

The whole question here is whether there are any meaningful choices to made, given that God has precogntion. [4] As you're the theist, you can define precognition any way you want. If you can demonstrate that God knows what I will do yet I still have a meaningful choice, then you'll have defeated my objections. [5] If you're happy for simply following one course of action even though there are no other possible ones to be called a "choice", then we're only arguing semantics. [6] I don't see the difference between this and a robot or even a rock "choosing" to do things. [7] We have (at least the illusion of) consciousness and the sense of control; it doesn't mean we are really making any meaingful choices at all.

If you want to assume from the start that I do have meaningful choices to make, then I'd like to know how God can know, in advance, what I will choose. I don't mean how is he powerful enough, but I mean how can the knowledge be available. [8]

I'm only trying to mimic theistic ideas of precognition. To me, the idea is ludicrous. [9]

1) Exactly. I am asking, in your scenario, "Does god know that you will make "a genuine choice" to walk through the red door?" OR "Does god know that you will walk through the red door without having made a genuine choice?"

2) It is a choice in the same sense in which we understand the human action of choosing. If god knows that you will engage in the human action of choosing the red door, then you will engage in the human action of choosing the red door. His pre-knowledge doesn't somehow destroy the action.

In other words, you don't seem to be taking into account the various things in play. It seems obvious that if the precognition includes the real choice of the red door, then the reality also includes the real choice of the red door. When you ask, "How is that a choice?" I think you really mean, "How is that a free choice?" That is the real question, but we can't answer it until we clean up the language about the choice. Precognition does not preclude choice, provided the precognition includes the choice.

If god infallibly knows that you will really choose the red door, then you will certainly and really choose the red door. That doesn't seem controversial to me. The difficulty isn't in the reality of the choice... but in the nature of the choice (i.e. free or not).

3) I am sorry if that was ambiguous. I meant that if god infallibly knows that you will walk through the red door even without having chosen to walk through the red door (e.g. like an automaton), then you will certainly walk through the red door without having chosen to walk through it (like an automaton).

4) Which is to ask, are there free choices being made? So I must then ask, what would consist in a meaningful or free choice?

5) Why don't we just start with the reality that "you" are engaging in a real human act of choice, even while god knows that you will engage in just that act of choice? Can we at least agree that, if god infallibly knows that you will choose the red door, then you will definitely and certainly choose the red door?

6) Which introduces another term that is often used in these discussions which we need to be perfectly clear about what we mean: "possible". As a human being, I am always "able" to choose to walk through blue doors, as in that is not something human beings can't do. It is perfectly within my power as a human being to choose to walk through any blue door, even this blue door in your scenario. Regardless of which door I ultimately choose, this "ability" to choose to walk through blue doors remains in my power AS a possibility, until I choose to act in such a way to bring it into actuality.

It that sense: "Having actually chosen the red door, could I possibly have chosen the blue door?" The answer is yes. The power to choose to walk through blue doors remains within your person. After walking through the red door. You could go back, and choose to walk through the blue door later.

In this sense: "Supposing the existence of infallible knowledge that you will choose the red door, could you possibly have chosen the blue door, at the moment about which knowledge is had?" The answer is no. Why? Because you can't bring two potential choices into actuality in the same way at the same time. That is a logical contradiction. 

7) Yes! Even animals choose things in this simple way. But we'd have to agree about the reality of a choice being made before we can talk about the reality of some other quality (e.g. freedom) of the choice.

8) No need, I think the direction we are heading will take care of that.

9) I understand that impression for sure.

[Tonus]

He saved us as a human so that in one sense, God saves us, and in another sense, we humans actually participate in our own salvation. We aren't damsels in distress. God saves us through Jesus's human action. When we are united in Jesus, we participate in our own salvation. Why? Because Jesus suffers with us.

That's a bit convoluted for me.  I can't understand how a God who can always act unilaterally puts us in positions to suffer or rejoice instead of creating a scenario where we did not suffer.  I cannot accept that anyone but God is to blame for what happens when things go wrong in a world, universe, and reality that he created.

2) What is sympathy and mercy, as you understand them?

We can go with the standard dictionary definitions.

3) Well yes. I said it looked like a failure, because it ended in public execution. Not exactly an expectation of the Christ. But if he tells us that even a perfect life won't avoid suffering (even his didn't)... how easy does a perfect life appear?

I get what you're saying.  Although it should have been an expectation, given the prophecies that were written and his own prediction to his followers, those who were watching from afar (so to speak) would have simply seen a roving preacher who antagonized the wrong guys.  But from the perspective of someone reading the Bible much later, he triumphed.  However, the reason that he suffered was because his perfect human form was in a world that went off the rails... a fate he did not prevent.

4) Exactly. He could have done that. What does it tell us that he chose to remain united to his humanity even in the face of suffering?

If I thought it was real, I would be confused by this.  Why would he choose to suffer?  Indeed, why go through any of it?  So much of this could have been avoided if God had uttered three words: "I forgive you."  Imagine the level of mercy that this would reveal, suspending judgment and giving us a chance to do things right without the unfair shackles of imperfection!

6) No, not necessarily. There is nothing God is not willing to forgive. He would gladly forgive the men who killed him if they asked for the forgiveness.

Now imagine how magnanimous he would be if he forgave them unconditionally?

9) Impressive? Maybe not. Good news for us? I think so, given that he didn't have to.

That's even scarier to me.  God creates the world and two humans and then creates the conditions under which they can fail, with the stipulation that their failure will resonate through all of humanity for thousands of years to come.  And there is nothing we can do to fix that because we are unable to avoid sinning even if we wished that it were not so.  And God is under no obligation to change this scenario.  He could send us all packing to hell if he so wished.

This is where I would be most concerned about knowing for sure that God was truly compassionate and merciful.  Because that would be the only hope I had.  It would not matter that he was right or wrong, that he was at fault or blameless.  All that matters is what he decides to do, because no one can prevent him from acting.  Under those circumstances, anything short of clear and direct action should make us very, very nervous.  The long and convoluted plan to offer us salvation under certain conditions should frighten us because we know that this means that God does not want everyone to be saved, or he would simply save everyone.

10) He cursed us? Or did he create a world in which we curse ourselves...

If he wrote the rules and put all of the pieces on the board, those are really the same thing, aren't they?  And I cannot accept blame for cursing myself.  If two people conspired to turn against God six thousand years ago, I didn't have anything to do with that.  But their curse lives on in me and I am expected to accept this because the guy who made the rules holds all of the cards and this is what he decided to go with.  My options are to blame myself and beg for mercy or face an eternity of suffering.  That's not mercy, that's extortion.

I understand that doesn't convince you, and I truly appreciate your responses.

My goal in any discussion here is to learn what people believe and why they believe it.  The discussion is the reward (or the agony, if I'm engaging Little Rik).  I'm glad for anyone like you who prefers to express his beliefs plainly and openly.  It's not always easy in a forum like this and some folks get discouraged but, in the end, it's just a discussion.  Thanks.

[Cyberman]

So; what is the difference if you go through door A and there is no envelope with the prediction?  What does it mean that you do not have freedom in this sense?
I could will to fly like a bird, but I'm not free to do so.

The envelope was an analogy. If what you will do is already known (doesn't matter by who or what) then you have no free will because your will is already determined. That simple. In this case the envelope knows your will, in your case the very God you believe in knows your will. 

Something cannot be known if it isn't determined, in this context.

If I may, I think perhaps a slightly more apt analogy might be the letter that Marty left in Doc Brown's pocket in BttF, warning him of his fate unless he takes action to prevent it. It's why Doc was so determined not to know - his free will was compromised.

[Asmodee]

You really are.  All the cool kids know it.

yahweh, allah, and the lord jesus christ all follow me on twitter.  I don't follow back.

Yes folks, he doesn't always drink beer.  But when he does...

[SteveII]

Molinists say the logical ordering of events for creation would be as follows:

1. God's natural knowledge of necessary truths.
2. God's middle knowledge, (including counterfactuals).
---Creation of the World---
3. God's free knowledge (the actual ontology of the world).

So, at step 2, the counterfactual "if Judas was in circumstance C, he would freely do A", can be true or false only if that statement is determinate in the sense that C is fully specified. Being fully specified is not the same as being causally determined. Because of the ordering of God's knowledge (1-3), at step 2 there will be an unimaginable number of counterfactuals that will have truth value that will never be actualized.

Your response doesn't in any way answer my objection.  Judas' actions must be determined in order for there to be a counterfactual for God to know.  But if his actions are determined, he doesn't have libertarian free will.  You can't have both, knowable counterfactuals and libertarian free will.

The answer to your question is in the order of God's knowledge. If we image trillions of possible worlds branching from every decision ever made where, up unit that point, all circumstances C were fully specified (including God knowing your thoughts). I think you would agree (let me know if you don't) that in considering all these timelines, God is observing libertarian free will. God surveyed all those worlds in #2--prior to creation.

He chose to actualize one of them. 


God's Free Knowledge (#3) or foreknowledge stemming from #2 of what will happen does not change the fact that we are still making choices for internal reasons not causally determined from outside ourselves--therefore libertarian free will.

[Ignorant]

The answer to your question is in the order of God's knowledge. If we image trillions of possible worlds branching from every decision ever made where, up unit that point, all circumstances C were fully specified (including God knowing your thoughts). I think you would agree (let me know if you don't) that in considering all these timelines, God is observing libertarian free will. God surveyed all those worlds in #2--prior to creation.

He chose to actualize one of them. 

God's Free Knowledge (#3) or foreknowledge stemming from #2 of what will happen does not change the fact that we are still making choices for internal reasons not causally determined from outside ourselves--therefore libertarian free will.

I think the point of Jormungandr's objection lies in God's ultimate choice to actualize one, and just one of the possible worlds. No other possible world will take place, and in that sense, god has determined exactly one set of Judas's life choices in which he betrays Jesus exactly as he does in reality. Libertarian free will holds that the human will is the single formal cause of its own choice (i.e. nothing at all but the will itself determines the will's choice). If god determines which set of Judas's choices among an infinity of various circumstances, then god has, in some sense, determined which choices the will makes. This can't line up with libertarian free will. Molinist free will is not the same as libertarian free will, even if they are very similar. At least that is my understanding, and I've been wrong before.