@KraangPrime Regarding your comment on my answer: philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/52079/29944 , "Not once is it claimed that we are to do as we please", but didn't God tell Adam and Eve to do what they wanted except for eating from one special tree? Did Adam and Eve not have enough free will to make a choice and disobey?

@FrankHubeny Here's another video that's on this topic:

@Chelonian That's a good video and clear. Craig referenced his work The only wise God which I will see if I can find. However, the argument he claimed is a fallacy is only so with a modal argument using necessarily in one of the premises. I don't see any fallacy otherwise. He also makes it appear as if God doesn't know anything about the future unless He knows every choice made by free agents. I don't think that is the case.

I have no problem if God knows all counterfactuals that could happen but does not know until the final choice is made what the free agents choose. That is how I see Molinism: knowledge of the counterfactuals of all future events, but only knowledge of the real world, or which of the counterfactuals events collapsed to reality, after the events happen. That would be what a quantum physicist knows of a quantum experiment before and after collapse.

I would agree that the only word that matters to Craig's point is "necessarily". I'm not sure if that word does any real work or not. In any case, looks like we have Plantinga, Moreland, and Craig and me on one side, and the Open Theists, you, and Molinists (whoever those are--haven't Googled that yet!) on the other side. Interesting how it's tough to agree on this issue. (And I am not even a theist and I somehow have an opinion here).

Here is a review of the book: skepticalchristian.com/br_onlywisegod.htm The reviewer writes: Since God’s knowledge of these counterfactual truths is exhaustive, God can choose to create a world that works towards His purposes by creating free creatures and placing them in the appropriate circumstances so that His ultimate plans are realized. If God placed them so they must act in such a way then His omnipotence not His omniscience removes their freedom.

@Chelonian Supposedly Craig and Plantinga (according to Conifold) are Molinists. The Open Theists, for some reason I don't yet understand, don't even think God knows the counterfactuals. I see no problem with knowing counterfactuals as long as God does not know what the free agent will do.

Just getting to the point: Why does foreknowledge prevent an act from being free to you? Let's say true libertarian free will means that agents choose things (somehow supernaturally and mysteriously). Let's say we call that "Using the Magic Free Will Organ". Why would knowing beforehand what they will choose mean that they didn't use the Magic Free Will Organ?

(and when I saying "knowing beforehand", I don't mean calculating beforehand what they will do, like in Laplace's Demon. I mean magically knowing. Seeing the future like a seer.

@Chelonian It is like a magic free will organ as I see it. There is no calculation involved. There may not even be a conscious awareness that a choice was made such as where I take my next step although I would assume responsibility for making that choice to step as I did. The problem has to do with a separation of myself from God. If there is no separation then there is no problem.

@FrankHubeny - from the notion of God, "I am the beginning and the end, the alpha and the omege" and " and all those who live on the earth will worship the beast, everyone whose name has not been written since the foundation of the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb who was killed" points more to the notion that everything is predetermined. Can you conceive of a God that created man, but does not know him ?

"free will" is not something that is mentioned in the doctrine -- at all. assuming we are making our own choices and can suprise God, is at the very least, egocentric, and at worst - blasphemous.

@FrankHubeny > The problem has to do with a separation of myself from God. If there is no separation then there is no problem.

> The problem has to do with a separation of myself from God. If there is no separation then there is no problem.

Why is that?

@Chelonian - the illusion of free choice, vs actual free choice is simply a matter of perception of the one apparently making the choice -- the creation -- doing something that the creator ( God ) has no foreknowledge of before creating that creation.

@KraangPrime Yes, I can conceive of such a God that created man as someone free where knowledge of the free acts are not known until they are performed. I can flip the question around: can you imagine a God who gives ten commandments, but does not provide those receiving the commandments the ability to obey them or not? Without free will there is no point in giving out any commandments.

meaning, in the eyes of humans, every choice you make, is random or based on your own thoughts and feelings -- to you. however to God, every encounter and occurance / feeling in your life, is all his creation -- he knows you. the number of hairs on your head. your name may or may not have been written into the foundation of the world, which determines if you go to heaven or hell.

OK, so it's back to foreknowledge rules out free will. Still don't see why magic foreknowledge means the Magic Free Will Organ was inactivated at the moment of choice.

@Chelonian If there is no separation between myself and God then my free will IS God's free will and so I have free will because God does.

@FrankHubeny - that is an excellent flip, however if you look into it, the 10 commandments, he foresaw he would issue those. He knew the deeds of man, before he created man.

OK, thanks for that.

that notion assumes you are God.

consider this instead, that all of humanity is an expression of information gathering, while he knows the choices we would all make before we make them, our inability to realize our choices are not our own -- they are always His -- also prevents us from seeing past the illusion, and thus assuming we are making our own choice, doing things that would suprise God.

@KraangPrime The notion of God giving me free will and knowing what I will do in advance assumes I am God. That would mean any evil done in the world is done by God. So I think we need to separate God from us, but perhaps not as much as is done today where we are isolated to our individual brains.

so what if that very concept was so that the experience itself could be completed - while he knows everything, every decision everyone would ever make from before His first spark of life -- to better experience that, easy individual must feel like they are special and unique and in the drivers seat.

Did god create the Angels ?

Did God know an Angel or some angels would betray Him ? Why would he allow them to betray him ?

Who created Hell and cast one or more angel(s) that disobeyed him there ?

@KraangPrime How could they betray him if they did not have the ability to do so? If He made the angels betray him, then they did what he wanted them to do and were actually obeying Him. If those angels betrayed God, they must have had the ability to make a choice to disobey. Some of the problem has to do with assuming omnipotence and omniscience do not overlap in any way. I think they do overlap.

Exactly the point. If i created objects, some that go left, and some that go right --- then ... i lay down, all objects that go left are evil, and go into the fire. All objects that go right, are good, and get stored on a shelf. It is literally just as arbitrary and controlled as that. The objects have no say, even if they feel like they do. I already determined it.

To state we have "free will", is to disregard God, and blaspheme any doctrine -- the reason, if he gave us free will, he would have mentioned it.

@KraangPrime That is how I see the situation if we do not have free will. If we do have free will then we are responsible for the evil, not God, but if you wish God to be responsible that solves the problem as well.

The equation (at least from our limited existence) seems straighforward - God created all, including the Angels. God knows everything before it happens, omnipotence. Since he created Lucifer, and Lucifer disobeyed, God knowing this was going to happen means that God created the concept of good and evil -- if you are to go by the book anyway.

God created man, if God wanted man to not be "tempted" or to succumb to it -- He could have done so, but didn't.

@KraangPrime That would be how an atheist would argue against the existence of such a God. That is not my position, but the non-existence of God would solve the problem.

To me, it is like making an ice-cube, but then punishing it for melting in the sun

I feel the non-existence of God would raise more problems than it would solve.

@KraangPrime You seem to be arguing for it, or at least the non-existence of a benevolent God.

although, is God a loving God -- or a dictator to a creation he knows already who is not going to pass before he made them

correct. I do not believe that by our definition, our God is benevolent.

i believe our God is a bored God. One who uses his power to amuse at the expense of his creation.

if all his creation, ends up worshipping him forever, or burning in a fiery wrath forever -- either option, does not seem like a good choice.

not to mention, the outcome is predetermined.

@KraangPrime I think your position is consistent, however, Plantinga argues for a benevolent God but gives us free will to put the burden of evil on us (or angels and other free creations). I think Plantinga's position is closer to what is going on.

that is possibly why we are under the illusion of free will (eg, free to make our own choice and suprise whatever God) -- however those choices I do not believe are things we make as random as we feel we are. I feel those choices are already decided, but -- the reason to put the burden -- is definitely a good one, and that in itself leans towards God not being benevolent .

@KraangPrime However, what we experience as free will may not be an illusion. The experience is what is primary. The view that it is an illusion is either based on atheistic event causation or certain theological views of determinism. Neither of these positions need to be correct. Our experience of free will may be a truth about reality.

One or the other is correct. If we have free will, there is no God, or God is not all knowing --- which is against pretty much all written about Him. If we don't have free will, this makes more sense where the is a God who is all knowing --- knowing everything about everything BEFORE creating them.

speaking of "free will" -- in Canada, getting spammed with AMBER Alerts on my phone --- yay for mandatory alerts that we have no option to turn off.

this keeps up, i will use my "free will" and smash the friggen thing

@KraangPrime As I see it God knows everything there is to know and we do have free will. The question is what is there to know? As I see it, the actual choices of free agents are not knowable until they are performed. This gives God omniscience as well as giving us free will. It could be either from an Open Theist or a Molinist-type perspective.

@KraangPrime In response to this that you wrote:

> if we have free will, there is no God, or God is not all knowing --- which is against pretty much all written about Him.

My part of this thread was the idea that God can know the future and there can be libertarian free will. A few prominent theologians hold this view. I'm not a theist, but it seems to me if you accept the magic of omniscience and the magic of free will, there's no reason to not accept their both existing at the same time.

From the notion of God, you need to look at the writings -- specifically the part where the names of "good" people are written into the foundation of everything long before you were ever born. This gives emphasis to the fact he knew which path you would "choose" as He knows how many hairs are on your head at any given time -- well before your were created.

In other words, it is clear what His powers are, and how deep his omnisciense is.

I rather enjoy discussing the fantasy that theists express and argue exists while stating things like "it's in the bible" and such, without it actually being in there --- so many people believe the words "free will" exist in the bible that the real apocalypse is finding out for themselves it isn't.

@KraangPrime The Bible does seem to talk about "choices" as well, though. Maybe that's entailed in your view, though. In any case, this is only a problem for Christians if they believe that God's foreknowledge is incompatible with free will--and some don't believe that.

choices and free will are definitely not one in the same. do not confuse possibilities with streered direction.

@KraangPrime Having a choice allows for that choice to be the result of free will or not. A computer makes choices, but not as a result of free will. We know that because we know there is underlying programming that completely determines what the choice will be. We don't know that there is underlying programming for our choices that completely determines our choices. I am getting this "completely caused by prior events" brom Mark Balaguer Free Will although I don't agree with his materialism.