|
Navigation
|
 |
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Article Navigation:
Want to write?
We're always looking for new writers and people willing to help out with the magazine and site. If you're interested, [Click here for more info]. |
|
Stay Updated!
If you'd like to stay updated and recieve a notice when the next issue of is released, just sign up at our forums by [Clicking here]. We will send out a mass e-mail to all our members when the next issue is released. |
|
Your Comments
Let us know how you feel about this issue. We will read e-mail sent and would appreciate any comments and/or suggestions that you may have. [Click here]. |
|
|
|
 |
God’s Foreknowledge and Our Free Will
by Steven
Are the concepts of absolute foreknowledge and free will compatible?
 Many religions put forth the concept of an all-knowing God that possesses foreknowledge of all events that are to come. There are those who would claim that such a concept of an all-knowing God goes against the idea of true free will. Others claim that a God with foreknowledge does not stand in contrast in the idea of free will. Are these two ideas truly mutually exclusive to each other?
The Importance of Defining "Divine Foreknowledge"
In his essay, “Time, Eternity, and Predestination,” Jason Dulle attempts to bridge the possibility of a God with foreknowledge being compatible with the tenets of free will by making the argument that:
“As I approach a red light, I have foreknowledge that it will turn green soon, but I did not, and cannot make it turn green. Someone else was responsible for that. Gods foreknowledge of future events does not determine the course of events.”
Is Dulle’s argument a valid one? It would seem as though the argument is based on a false definition of the word “foreknowledge.” What I believe Dulle is referring to is more akin to a theory. He has observed traffic lights change color on numerous occasions and is familiar with the principle with which they operate. Dulle has learned from experience that red traffic lights will almost always turn green and thus theorizes that the red light he is approaching will at some point turn green. This theory is in fact a solid one and will prove correct almost every time. However, it does not constitute foreknowledge for Dulle in reality does not KNOW that the light will turn green. He is merely making an educated prediction based on previous knowledge. After all, it is possible that the traffic light will malfunction or break down.
On his website, Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, Mathew Slick makes a similar analogy while defending the notion of divine foreknowledge and free will.
“For example, I know that my child will choose to eat chocolate cake over a bowl full of stinking dead mice. If I were to set them both before my child, it is safe to say she will not eat the dead mice.”
Once again, it would seem as though the notion of a theory is mistakenly thought of as foreknowledge. Slick has learned, through a series of experiences and observations, that his child will likely not eat the bowl of dead mice. However, the strength of his prediction and the strong likelihood of it proving correct do not constitute foreknowledge. For Slick does not truly know, beyond any doubt, that his daughter will not eat one of the dead mice. He is merely predicting the likely outcome. Though the chances of this outcome occurring are almost 100%, it is not truly foreknowledge for he really does not know but is instead making an educated prediction.
It is therefore important to define “divine foreknowledge” before continuing. Though varying interpretations and definitions exist, let us for the sake of simplicity define “divine foreknowledge” as the concept that a divine being, God, knows with complete certainty everything that will ever happen. This foreknowledge is not a mere prediction, but true knowledge of the sequence of events throughout the existence of the universe. This definition of foreknowledge would be compatible with the idea of an omniscient God common in various religions such as Christianity.
The Predictive Model of Divine Foreknowledge
 This definition of divine foreknowledge automatically disqualifies one concept that Tim Holt describes in his essay “How Does God Know the Future?”:
“According to the predictive model of divine foreknowledge, God’s foreknowledge is derived from calculations such as these but on a much grander scale. Given perfect knowledge of the present state of the world, and perfect knowledge of the laws that govern the interaction of its parts, it seems, it should be possible to predict with perfect accuracy the way that the world will be at any given point in the future.”
Several problematic issues arise with the use of the predictive model of divine foreknowledge. For one, predictions do not constitute complete knowledge. Such a model would leave the possibility of a prediction not occurring … an occurrence that would prove God as fallible. According to the tenets of several religions, God is not fallible.
The predictive model of divine knowledge would also contradict several concepts put forth by popular religion. One such concept is put forth by Christianity in the form of the claim that God exists outside of time. The very basis of making predictions is predicated on one’s existence in a world of time. For are not predictions based on an occurrence taking place in the future? How so, then, can a being that exists outside of the realm of time make a prediction of the future? For would not the God put forth in Christianity be able to see the past, present, and future simultaneously? Would not the God have to exist in the present instant of existence and be absent from the future to make predictions of the future? For if such a God were to be both present at this instance and also present in the future instances of existence, then one cannot truly call this a prediction so much as an observation of his current existence in the future.
It is thus, that for the purpose of this paper, we can dismiss the concept of the predictive model of divine foreknowledge as incompatible with our definition of the term.
The Observational Model of Divine Knowledge
We see in our discussion of the predictive model of divine foreknowledge a concept that brings us to the next model of an omniscient God. It has been put forward by various religions that God transcends time and exists outside of the past, present, and future. Tim Holt describes the next model of an omniscient God:
“The observational model of divine foreknowledge holds that God knows the future not by carrying out complex calculations about how the present might play out, but simply by observing it. God exists outside time, the observational model holds, and so is able to directly observe different points in time just as we can directly observe different points in space. On the observational model of divine foreknowledge ... God’s knowledge of the future is based not on predicting how the world will be in the future but on seeing how the world is in the future.”
The observational model of divine foreknowledge is perhaps the most widely accepted model by the various supporters of an omniscient God. It is however in this model that we find a contradiction to the concept of free will. For is it not true that if the observational model of divine foreknowledge were true, that our lives and actions are already predetermined and have already taken place? For to create a universe that from the beginning has a set end, which would be necessary for God to exist in the past, present, and future simultaneously, would it not be true that at the creation of such a universe, all actions have already taken place?
Is it not true, that if God were to have created a universe that from it’s inception, he existed in it’s past, present, and future … would such a concept not entail that God himself in fact predetermined all action that have and will occur? For example, if the observational model of divine foreknowledge were to hold true, from the very instance of the creation of the universe … perhaps billions of years before I have ever even existed, God will have seen me sitting here writing this essay. God will have also seen me give this essay to various people. God will already know their reaction to my essay for he has already observed this future. For such knowledge to exist, my actions must have been predetermined at the very creation of time itself.
Does such a model leave me with any truly free will? No. All my actions have been predetermined, and have in fact already taken place, before I was ever even born! For God to simultaneously exist in the past, present, and future, all such times must have already been created and must have already occurred. Thus, one is left with no other choice but to follow in the sequence set forth by God when he created the universe. To take an action that this God would have not already have seen would be to prove God wrong … for from the very creation of the universe, such a God would already know every action you would take. From the very first instance of our universe’s existence, before we have ever exercised any options or choices, our future has already taken place.
It is thus that using our definition of divine foreknowledge, the observational model of divine knowledge would prove incompatible with the notion of a truly free will.
The Finite Mind
This leaves us with, for the purpose of this paper, the final widely used argument for the existence of both an omniscient God and free will that we will examine: our finite mind.
Such an argument would hold that the omniscient God transcends our reality itself. It would thus be impossible for us to truly understand much about such a God for our mind is limited by our senses. Our mind and intellect are extremely finite in nature when compared to the transcendent state in which such a God exists. According to this argument, we are truly incapable of understanding the nature of God. “You can’t understand God, so don’t even bother trying to figure this stuff out!”
Does not the argument of the finite mind also challenge the idea of an omniscient God? For if God truly transcends our limited understanding, how can we say that he is in fact omniscient? How can we say that such a God is omnipotent? How can we make any claims about such a God for we are truly in a position of understanding almost nothing about this God and the reality in which such a God would exist. We are thus left in a position of having to also dismiss the argument of finite minds, for such an argument would also challenge the very notion that we can ever truly claim that God is omniscient … for we are inherently incapable of understanding such a God.
Conclusion
In the end, we are left with what appears to be a contradiction between the concept of an omniscient God that has true foreknowledge and the idea that such a God has given us free will. Perhaps it is true that we are inherently incapable of understanding such a transcendent God. But in that case, why bother ever trying to explain anything?
Works Cited:
1) Dulle, Jason. Time, Eternity, and Predestination. Apolistic Ministries Network. http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/time.htm
2) Holt, Tim. How Does God Know the Future? Philosophy of Religion Info. http://www.philosophyofreligion.inf...wthefuture.html
3) Slick, Mathew. If God is all knowing and he knows our future, then how is that free will? Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. http://www.carm.org/questions/free_will.htm
* Article by Steven.
* Back to This Issue's Frontpage
|
|
|
