Can there be free will while God knows all things?

[Bill (Papa) Lee]

It does not matter that God knows the outcome, we do not. He might know what choice we make, but it is our choice and no one else's. But with each positive or negative choice we make, sets us on a different path...the path is not set, but once on that path, this is what God may know. When my children were young, especially when young adults, I would often know and then often be right about what was to come. My oldest daughter, 20+ years ago said she would not consider serving a mission. She wanted to meet someone and marry. She became engaged and realized that just wanting something does not mean it was the best reason to move forward. She just felt the Spirit pulling her in another direction, and that direction was to serve a mission. Her discussion to serve on a mission, changed the direction of her life forever. I think God sees the paths, so he knows what is on that path, this is how he knows. He is not a puppet master pulling on our strings. 

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Bill (Papa) Lee said:

It does not matter that God knows the outcome, we do not. He might know what choice we make, but it is our choice and no one else's. But with each positive or negative choice we make, sets us on a different path...the path is not set, but once on that path, this is what God may know. When my children were young, especially when young adults, I would often know and then often be right about what was to come. My oldest daughter, 20+ years ago said she would not consider serving a mission. She wanted to meet someone and marry. She became engaged and realized that just wanting something does not mean it was the best reason to move forward. She just felt the Spirit pulling her in another direction, and that direction was to serve a mission. Her discussion to serve on a mission, changed the direction of her life forever. I think God sees the paths, so he knows what is on that path, this is how he knows. He is not a puppet master pulling on our strings. 

Most important for sure. It is us that control our destiny, we make the choice, its not already set in stone.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Armin said:

Not in stone, but maybe in flesh and our nervous system, that rules us ("the black and the white horses") by tipping the balance that leads to our decisions, right or wrong. Some disordered and pathologically changed metabolism, a few degenerated cerebral cells, and the kind and helpful old man who's been your neighbour for years might come out as a serial killer sawing up his victims in the night (Your wife: Isn't it strange what he's doing all the night...? You: So what? He's a diligent old man and he's just renovating his cellar, he told me yesterday. Let's sleep.) Where is the "freedom" of choice you are proclaiming if you ignore physiologic and metabolic processes, endogenous and exogenous factors?

Of course that old (or young) bluebeard is evil and guilty, and he should get the capital punishment (as long as there is still enough Midazolam or Pentobarbital like in Arkansas), but was he really free in his decisions...? I mean, those were his decisions, but were they really free...?

Remember, we are only free when we are obedient. Its rather rare that a person does wicked things based off of there physiologic makeup they were born with. "The devil made me do it" is the end result of following wickedness for so long that you allow yourself bound to his will and not your own. Thats how Satan destroys your agency.

[Rob Osborn]

6 hours ago, Armin said:

I'm always uncertain to see how the devil is brought into the play, because he seems to be hold responsible for all our misdemeanor.  It appears to me as some kind of superficial excuse for own and failed decisions, behaviour and actions. I always ask myself why the devil should make somebody kill another, because he would lose one spirit (I mean the victim's) that he maybe could have pulled on his side. Without joking, but why should Satan be interested to let someone being killed by a person that's already bound to his will...?

Satan glories in murder and he loves to control those into doing it. Its his ultimate high just like a serial killer.

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Armin said:

The answer is too short, and maybe you haven't seen the point. What I mean is, that each person being murdered by another person (who is inspired by Satan) might be a loss on Satan's balance. He would have more time to pull a good and obedient person on his side ("free will") when he / she was alive. And the spirit of the person (who is bounded to him) might fall in his hands anyway, so it's not necessary to make him / her more guilty). Satan must be a good calculator, because he has to weigh with two things: should he make the person who is already bounded to him more guilty and a murderer, so that the other person, the victim, could no more be influenced by him any more (after being dead), or should he not inspire the evil person to commit a murder...? In case of the first choice Satan's only triumph was that he would have made the murderer more guilty than he was before (what does it count), but he could no more influence the other person, what surely means a loss for him. I'm afraid Satan acts in more trivial ways, and his ultimate high is not just like a serial killer. When a person is dead, the game is over for Satan. He won't find a "free will" down among the dead men.

Evil doesnt always think, sometimes it just does. Satan dont care so much about numbers, he loves killing Gods children through murder.

[wenglund]

On 4/26/2017 at 0:07 PM, Rob Osborn said:

...we make the choice, its not already set in stone.

Even if it is set in stone, that doesn't negate agency. It simply renders permanent free will choices.

Again, in terms of free will, perfect knowledge of the future doesn't negate agency any more than perfect knowledge of the past. Known choices that have been made in the past are set in historical stone and cannot be changed, this doesn't mean the choices weren't a function of individual agency. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund- 

Edited April 28, 2017 by wenglund

[wenglund]

11 minutes ago, Armin said:

You are looking from the present back to the past. You see former choices set in historical stone, and those choices might have resulted from a free will and were maybe a function of what you call individual agency. So far, so good.

But this is a paradoxon: If you had a perfect knowledge of the future you had a perfect knowledge of what has been set in stone when you look back from the future to the past, which is the present from which you can see all that what will happen in the future, seen from a moment in the future, as if it were the past, but it is not the past what you see, because you see it from the present with that knowledge of the future, as if you saw it from the future looking back to the past, which is the present from which you see all the stones in future that will become historical stones seen from the future, somewhere between the present and the future - quite easy.

Okay. However, the paradoxon pertain to the dimension of time (placement and direction) rather than agency or free will. Correct? Agency or free will is not negated regardless. Or, if it were negated by knowledge of the future, it would have to be negated by knowledge of the past. Right?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, wenglund said:

Even if it is set in stone, that doesn't negate agency. It simply renders permanent free will choices.

Again, in terms of free will, perfect knowledge of the future doesn't negate agency any more than perfect knowledge of the past. Known choices that have been made in the past are set in historical stone and cannot be changed, this doesn't mean the choices weren't a function of individual agency. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund- 

The future cant be set in stone (perfectly foreknown) or there would not be free will. 

[CV75]

Jumping in late:

We are speaking of spiritual concepts here, and spirituality has to do with the meaning of things. Is the past, or the meaning of things in the past, really set in stone? Perhaps it seems so at certain junctures, but I think the atonement changes that. For example, in the temple, children are sealed to parents and are as though they had always been born in the covenant. When I was sealed to mine as an adult, I miraculously felt as though I had always been sealed to them; I knew and know what it is like to be born in the covenant. We are in a probationary, not a final, state – so, the past intrinsically cannot be set in stone.

Continuing with this idea, the future estate is merely the cast from the mold created by the past estate, and so it too changes along with the past; it likewise is cannot be cast in stone. Though your sins may be as scarlet and crimson, they shall be as white as snow, or wool, and the Lord remembers them no more.

What is known of things past, present and future (the truth, per D&C 93) is not so much factual as the meaning they contribute to becoming like God. I think that, as sin loses its meaning to us in the light of virtue, everything changes for the better. I think this has less to do with the relationship between knowledge (or truth) and agency and more to do with the very nature of knowledge—the more we have, the more agency we have, and they are actually the same thing (also per D&C 93).

God knows all things, or everything it takes to be God, which includes not remembering all the things that would have otherwise gotten in His way.

[Rob Osborn]

3 hours ago, Armin said:

Objection! Mr. Wenglund has never put up this assertion. Agency or free will don't pertain to the dimension of time, and as it's not negated by the past it can't be negated by the knowledge of the future.

The only thing that cant be cyanged is the past. The actions of the present shape the future. The decisions we make in the present are not nor cannot be foreknown with perfect accuracy. The future is thus fluid as to what direction it can go.

[Bill (Papa) Lee]

On April 26, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Rob Osborn said:

Most important for sure. It is us that control our destiny, we make the choice, its not already set in stone.

Indeed, each time we take a different path, a different chain of events are set in motion. God may know what is down that path, be we alone chose the path. 

[Rob Osborn]

13 minutes ago, Bill (Papa) Lee said:

Indeed, each time we take a different path, a different chain of events are set in motion. God may know what is down that path, be we alone chose the path. 

Exactly. Couldnt have said it better myself.

[CV75]

5 hours ago, Armin said:

It sounds as if we could make absolute free decisions, independently and with total ignorance of our perception, free of any compulsive reaction, and if we could determine our future by stepping from one "path" to the other. Your statement ignores endogenous as well as exogenous factors. Our mental situation is the result of some neuro-physiological status, as mentioned here before, and our "will" results from that status based on those neuro-physiological processes of our nervous system and the quarrel between its sub systems (between the black and the white horses, as David Eagleman said). And there are always situations when our decisions are getting influenced or manipulated externally, and thus our free will might just  be an illusion or a fine thing we only believe we have. Maybe it's rather an accidental will than a free will, but some may like to equate this.

We are only free to act within the sphere in which the Lord has placed us, and that is the context for these comments. We cannot make decisions independent of ourselves--that's silly. What makes us free within our sphere is the Atonement of Jesus Christ, for He eradicates (in the long run at least) all unjust encumbrances to our freedom of action, and judges us according to our choices given the light we have and are willing to receive.

Some principles to consider:

1. Just because something is spiritual doesn’t mean it isn’t neurochemical

2. Psychosomatic sensations can certainly be offset with unneurotic sensibility, but it is neurotic to maintain that no psychosomatic sensation is healthy for you or frees you of encumbrances.

3. Manipulation can be benevolent and inspired when breaking down those neuroses that interfere with salubrious psychosomatics (Alma 18:32).

[Bill (Papa) Lee]

On April 29, 2017 at 4:06 AM, Armin said:

It sounds as if we could make absolute free decisions, independently and with total ignorance of our perception, free of any compulsive reaction, and if we could determine our future by stepping from one "path" to the other. Your statement ignores endogenous as well as exogenous factors. Our mental situation is the result of some neuro-physiological status, as mentioned here before, and our "will" results from that status based on those neuro-physiological processes of our nervous system and the quarrel between its sub systems (between the black and the white horses, as David Eagleman said). And there are always situations when our decisions are getting influenced or manipulated externally, and thus our free will might just  be an illusion or a fine thing we only believe we have. Maybe it's rather an accidental will than a free will, but some may like to equate this.

I was thinking more along those who choose freely to travel the more beaten path, or the road (or path) less traveled, which makes all the difference. (To quote the poet). Also from the song from"Saturday Night's Warrior)..."when you choose the very first step on the road, you also choose the last". As parents, or in my case grandparent, even I, with my limited vision can know what can happen (or will) if my children or grandchildren choose freely to go down a destructive path, what will lie ahead. So certainly God our Father, with his unobstructed view knows what lies ahead. However he allows us to choose the path, but always provides "off ramps" (if you will) that can lead us back to the "straight and narrow", where His promises are found, but even on the "path that leads to Him" all will still have difficulties. 

[wenglund]

On 4/28/2017 at 4:05 PM, Rob Osborn said:

The future cant be set in stone (perfectly foreknown) or there would not be free will. 

No more so than were the past set in stone to negate free will.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 30, 2017 by wenglund

[wenglund]

On 4/28/2017 at 7:40 PM, Rob Osborn said:

The only thing that cant be changed is the past. The actions of the present shape the future. The decisions we make in the present are not nor cannot be foreknown with perfect accuracy. The future is thus fluid as to what direction it can go.

I think you may be projecting our mortal limitations (temporal constraints) onto God, and his ability to lift those constraint for certain mortals on occasion. Through revelation, many a prophet and others have seen the future. As a young teen I was blessed to see a future event, though at the time I wasn't aware that that was what I was seeing.  It wasn't until I experienced it, precisely as I had seen it, that I it was made known to me. So, I have personal evidence that your assumption about foreknowledge isn't exactly correct.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Osborn]

1 minute ago, wenglund said:

I think you may be projecting our mortal limitations (temporal constraints) onto God, and his ability to lift those constraint for certain mortals on occasion. Through revelation, many a prophet and others have seen the future. As a young teen I was blessed to see a future event, though at the time I wasn't aware that that was what I was seeing.  It wasn't until I experienced it, precisely as I had seen it, that I it was made known to me. So, I have personal evidence that your assumption about foreknowledge isn't exactly correct.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

And to counter, I have received revelation about a future event that surely would happen if certain things, decisions were not made. The future is left to the actions of the present, the decisions we make. God, on several occasions, has given prophecy where multiple outcomes would certsinly come to pass dependant on the decisions that future generation would make.

[Rob Osborn]

25 minutes ago, wenglund said:

No more so than were the past set in stone to negate free will.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The past gets set in stone as actions occur in the present. Once they happen they cannot be changed.

[wenglund]

4 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

The past gets set in stone as actions occur in the present. Once they happen they cannot be changed.

That is how we observe things in our temporal sphere. Nevertheless, the fact that actions are set in stone in the present does not negate free will.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[person0]

@Rob Osborn / @CV75,

Much earlier in this thread we were all conversing regarding the omniscience of God, how it actually works, and its relationship to agency, etc, just as the OP suggests.  Yesterday I came across some verses that stood out to me in a way they never had before within the context of this discussion:

Quote

27 And it came to pass, as the voice was still speaking, Moses cast his eyes and beheld the earth, yea, even all of it; and there was not a particle of it which he did not behold, discerning it by the Spirit of God.

28 And he beheld also the inhabitants thereof, and there was not a soul which he beheld not; and he discerned them by the Spirit of God; and their numbers were great, even numberless as the sand upon the sea shore.

29 And he beheld many lands; and each land was called earth, and there were inhabitants on the face thereof.

(Moses 1) (emphasis added)

I think it is an interesting nugget of truth applies to a lot of what we were discussing.  If the Spirit of God enabled Moses to behold all particles of the earth at once, and all people of the earth at once, then that is a clear example of the extent of the omniscience of God.  He can behold and be aware of all things at the same time, even sufficient to be able to show them all to one of us at the same time.  I'm still in awe at how clear these verses are, even to the extent of using the word particle!

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Armin said:

We can't make these decisions...? What about mathematics? Five plus five makes ten. Nine divided by three makes three. Don't let me make it more complicated, I'm not so good at mathematics, and I guess you know what I mean: we can make decisions independent of ourselves, when we are reaching a level where is no place for wrong decisions.

1) I would like to agree, but I'm not sure. It maybe depends on the question if our brain and its processes results from quantum effects or not.  Then I would equate "spiritual" and "neurochemical" - by the way: our nervous system works by chemical and electrical processes.  2) "Neurotic" doesn't seem to be the right word here. Psychosomatic sensations may result from a severe mental disorder 3. This statement remembers me of Scientology. Sounds like making someone "clear". I don't think it's the Mormon way, even if you've mentioned Alma 18:32.

If you are the one using the arithmetic, who but you is choosing to use it within your own skull? You have nowhere else and no other way to experience the equations but as an individual, and independently within that sphere in which you operate, and which I attribute to the Lord as having placed you. And that sphere allows only certain results to the equation that you cannot change, but still your perceptions may also be way off!

Here are the same principles, re-stated to help you better consider them:

1) Just because something is spiritual doesn’t mean it hasn’t a quantum process or operational level. (Note that the “chemistry” in neurochemistry includes it subset, “electrochemistry,” so let’s not overcomplicate things by ignoring the minimal references required for making the point).

2) Unneurotic means both mentally and emotionally stable, regardless of what the cause of instability might be. So, psychosomatic sensations can certainly be offset with unneurotic sensibility, and mental disorders can cause someone to maintain that no psychosomatic sensation is healthy for you or frees you of encumbrances. (Again, let’s not overcomplicate things).

3) It doesn’t uncomplicate things to create a scientology-label straw man. There are many medical parallels to salubrious manipulation. Can you name some other examples where manipulation is used for the Lord’s purposes? Such as D&C 19:7-12?

Edited April 30, 2017 by CV75

[CV75]

2 hours ago, person0 said:

@Rob Osborn / @CV75,

Much earlier in this thread we were all conversing regarding the omniscience of God, how it actually works, and its relationship to agency, etc, just as the OP suggests.  Yesterday I came across some verses that stood out to me in a way they never had before within the context of this discussion:

I think it is an interesting nugget of truth applies to a lot of what we were discussing.  If the Spirit of God enabled Moses to behold all particles of the earth at once, and all people of the earth at once, then that is a clear example of the extent of the omniscience of God.  He can behold and be aware of all things at the same time, even sufficient to be able to show them all to one of us at the same time.  I'm still in awe at how clear these verses are, even to the extent of using the word particle!

Moses 1 doesn’t say Moses beheld the particles and inhabitants at once. He beheld them in a vision over an undisclosed period of time (note that on at least one occasion he communed with God for 40 days and nights!). It says nothing of God’s omniscience, which is a non-scriptural term. It does say something about His being able to number things that are numberless, or indeterminate, to us, and His being able to show us that portion which pertains to this earth (verse 35). I don’t think anyone is trying to minimize His infinite (indeterminate) and eternal (indeterminate) ability to carry out His work and glory, but He certainly doesn’t use more or less than He has.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Armin said:

We can't escape from this temporal sphere (maybe on a LSD trip, but I haven't tried it ever, and I won't), but I wouldn't say that the past is absolute and "set in stone". Whenever we remember events in the past, how can we be sure our recall is correct...? But there is one stone that maybe gives a certain proof of our present and of our past, and the question of free will might become obsolete then: our tombstone... 

A comment about the past not being set in stone: Posted Friday at 06:39 PM

[wenglund]

On 4/30/2017 at 2:38 PM, Rob Osborn said:

And to counter, I have received revelation about a future event that surely would happen if certain things, decisions were not made. The future is left to the actions of the present, the decisions we make. God, on several occasions, has given prophecy where multiple outcomes would certsinly come to pass dependant on the decisions that future generation would make.

Sure. However, this doesn't counter what I said. It is not unlike looking at the past and asserting that different outcomes would surely have occurred were different choices made. Knowledge of sure outcomes making up a decision tree does not negate knowledge of decisions and outcomes that will be or have been made.

There were all sorts of decisions that my parents could have made that would have surely prevented me from experiencing what I had seen of the then future. For example, not long after my "vision" my dad made an employment decision that would have drastically changed the trajectory of my life and surely prevent what I saw of the future. However, before ultimately acting on the decision, he saw in dream certain undesirable outcomes that would surely happen were he to finally act on the decision, which caused him to eventually decline the position.

So, while different outcomes would have surely occur based on different decision freely made, this doesn't negate knowledge of the decisions and attendant outcomes that would be or were made, depending upon perspective (seeing things in the past or in the future).

Thanks, -Wade Engund-

Edited May 9, 2017 by wenglund

[Rob Osborn]

25 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Sure. However, this doesn't counter what I said. It is not unlike looking at the past and asserting that different outcomes would surely have occurred were different choices made. Knowledge of sure outcomes making up a decision tree does not negate knowledge of decisions and outcomes that will be or have been made.

There were all sorts of decisions that my parents could have made that would have surely prevented me from experiencing what I had seen of the then future. For example, not long after my "vision" my dad made an employment decision that would have drastically changed the trajectory of my life and surely prevent what I saw of the future. However, before ultimately acting on the decision, he saw in dream certain undesirable outcomes that would surely happen were he to finally act on the decision, which caused him to eventually decline the position.

So, while different outcomes would have surely occur based on different decision freely made, this doesn't negate knowledge of the decisions and attendant outcomes that would be or were made, depending upon perspective (seeing things in the past or in the future).

Thanks, -Wade Engund-

Irregardless, the future is not set in stone.