Foreknowledge & Free Will

Рет қаралды 1,645

Күн бұрын

In this video I summarize an argument that aims to show that divine foreknowledge precludes human freedom. I then summarize six responses to the argument.
Here is a form of the argument that does not rely on the transfer principle.
1. God believed 1,000 years ago that I would raise my hand at t.
2. If P1 and I am free not to raise my hand at t, then it is my power to do something such that, were I to do it, either (i) God would have had at least one different belief 1,000 years ago, or (ii) God would have had at least one false belief 1,000 years ago.
3. It is not in my power to do something such that, were I to do it, (i) God would have had at least one different belief 1,000 years ago, or (ii) God would have had at least one false belief 1,000 years ago.
4. Therefore, I am not free to raise my hand at t.
To explore this argument in more depth, check out the argument map I've created linked below, as well as the link to my interview with Dr. Taylor Cyr.
• Is Free Will Compatibl...
docs.google.com/presentation/...
Please consider becoming one of my patrons. Go to / theanalyticchristian
For more resources on Christian philosophy & theology, go to www.theanalyticchristian.com

Пікірлер: 54

@danielboone8256 9 ай бұрын

This is amazing! I love the argument map document!

@joelturnbull4038 2 жыл бұрын

We’ll done - very clearly presented.

@FreethinkingMinistries 2 жыл бұрын

Good video, Jordan! I need to take lessons from you on how to make animated vids. I love it! With that said, I am writing a script for a video for my YT channel that will be responding to, interacting with, and answering some of the questions raised in your video. I hope to record it soon. I'll keep you posted. Keep up the good work, brother!

@TheAnalyticChristian 2 жыл бұрын

Thanks for watching Tim! I’ll definitely listen to your response video.

@andrewmoon1917 2 жыл бұрын

It's worth noting that this 10 minute video is a summary of a lot of points that are expanded on and explained in more detail by Dr. Taylor Cyr in Jordan's interview with him. It's worth looking at and linked in the description. So, if you're writing a response video, it's worth checking to see if those responses aren't already dealt with in that video.

@lightshiner3742 2 жыл бұрын

Well done video! I've never heard the foreknowledge argument presented that way and it's very interesting. I think I've always proposed the "dependence" solution. I think God knows what we'll do because He knows the free will choice we made in advance. So I'm not really convinced the past is fixed.

@alanrhoda228 2 жыл бұрын

Ockhamism and Dependence are basically the same thing. Ockham's soft facts are "soft" because they *depend* on future events.

@Iamwrongbut 2 жыл бұрын

I wish I could’ve chosen whether or not to watch this.

@DryApologist 2 жыл бұрын

This is a great breakdown! I think dependence and timelessness can be combined to deny the first premise. 1. God timelessly knows all that is *happening* across space/time (so the timeless view). 2. God's knowledge of the events depends upon what is happening across space/time as the events happen (so the dependence view). We would not have the power to change what God *knew* (since He is eternally in the state of knowing the events as they are happening within space/time), but we do have the power to change what God timelessly *knows*. 3. This is not open theism because God already knows the future since He already sees the events occurring (though it would perhaps deny a counter factual truth value to the events).

@DryApologist 2 жыл бұрын

@euthyphro dilemma I think there is something missing from your first sentence, but I define omniscient to mean 'the ability to know all facts that can be known'.

@DryApologist 2 жыл бұрын

@euthyphro dilemma @euthyphro dilemma I recommend that you look into the history of the discussion regarding the nature of omniscience if you think suggesting that God has logical limitations is a new thing.

@DryApologist 2 жыл бұрын

@euthyphro dilemma You seem to be misunderstanding my position. I didn't say that God doesn't know the past, present, and future, though the video also presents the open theist position which argues that God does not know the future because there is no future to be know. My view is that space/time encompasses all acts which God eternally knows. So, God does know the future because He sees everything happening at once. This is also a traditional view, whether people know that or not. But, also asking me to prove the existence of free will is a separate issue because the issue at hand is about whether God's omniscience is compatible with free will. Human actions being contingent though doesn't entail that they lack free will either unless you have a specific argument for that (?).

@DryApologist 2 жыл бұрын

@euthyphro dilemma That is not the case because God knows that Eve will take the apple because God sees it happening outside of time.

@DryApologist 2 жыл бұрын

@euthyphro dilemma Yes...I understand your position. But, I don't think you are understanding mine. I am arguing that time is a 4 dimensional space/time continuum that God sees happening all at once. So, God sees Eve being created and eating the apple all at once across space/time. It's not that God sees it and then it happens. It's that God sees everything happening.

@flaror3496 8 ай бұрын

I think the solution is combination between Semicompatibilism and Free Will Skepticism. We do not need free will, the only thing a thiest needs is to prove that god being fair towards us, meaning no actual true free will in the actual sense of the word is required. Instead what we need to respond with is god simply gave us the choices that we would have made, hence he is still being just towards and we remain moral agents. But this is not real free will, we couldn't have chosen otherwise but god is still just because these are the decision that we would have made regardless of any actual other choice that should have been present. Hence we do not have free will, we only have the decisions that we would have made no matter what regardless of other possible decisions and that is only fair and just, but that does not qualify for REAL free will.

@jazzmankey Ай бұрын

The free will skepticism view is not a problem unless you equate accountability/responsibility with human freedom, which the Bible does not do. God holds man accountable for his actions, even though God himself has decreed all human actions. “A man’s steps are of the Lord; How then can a man understand his own way?” ‭‭Proverbs‬ ‭20‬:‭24‬ ‭NKJV‬‬ “O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps.” ‭‭Jeremiah‬ ‭10‬:‭23‬ ‭NKJV‬‬ “You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?” ‭‭Romans‬ ‭9‬:‭19‬-‭21‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

@OriginalWinProductions Жыл бұрын

I would just side with Robert M. Adams and deny God has beliefs about anything. Rather, I think that to speak of divine knowledge is to speak of God's causal power in making things intelligible to any and all contingent beings that could, would, or, do exist, so long as it is derived through reliable belief-forming cognitive mechanisms. God knows all things because he has this illuminating power regarding all possible propositions. While the problem can be reformulated about whether or not God can make our beliefs about the future into knowledge by providing illumination, however at this point, I'd just embrace a hybrid Timeless and Ockhamist view. Say we expand soft necessity to include views partly about the past, and partly about the future to even include facts partly about eternity. Since the fact "John prophesied x will choose y in the past, with God's power in eternity". It seems to fit the mold as a soft necessary fact.

@mikeschmoll7762 2 жыл бұрын

We are in the sphere of creation and act according to that sphere -> freely God is in the sphere of creator and acts according to that sphere -> freely We are responsible for the actions of our sphere and not for the actions in God's sphere. How these two spheres work out together is beyond my understanding.

@whatsinaname691 2 жыл бұрын

I still don’t get how knowing someone it’s about to do something makes it so that action is not free. I’ve played chess matches where I easily predicted my opponents next 3-4 moves, but I didn’t in any way force my opponent to make them.

@willcd 2 жыл бұрын

But divine foreknowledge purports that God knows the decisions of men who do not exist and haven't made their decisions.

@jazzmankey 5 ай бұрын

Amen brother, speaking as a fellow chess player. I have also anticipated my opponents next moves without in anyway being the cause. However, I am not God my knowledge is not infallible, neither is my knowledge based on my complete control of all things. For men to know the future, it Has to be revealed to him by God. God, on the other hand, knows our future because he has ordained that which will surely come to Pass. [Pro 20:24 KJV] 24 Man's goings [are] of the LORD; how can a man then understand his own way? [Eph 1:11 KJV] 11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: [Dan 4:35 NKJV] 35 All the inhabitants of the earth [are] reputed as nothing; He does according to His will in the army of heaven And [among] the inhabitants of the earth. No one can restrain His hand Or say to Him, "What have You done?"

@joop6463 2 жыл бұрын

Imagine you are standing infront of an icecream truck. There are only 4 possible outcomes: youll choose either: vanilla, chocolate, strawbarry or banana. In order to say that you can choose between all four options then each of them must have a chance of being chosen higher then 0% If thats the case then there cannot be true propositions about which 1 you are going to choose. For the existence of such a proposition would cause the probabilities of 3 of the options to drop to 0%. But if there are no true propositions about which flavor youre going to choose then how can God know which 1 youll choose? How can God have foreknowledge if the universe is truly indeterministic? But what if we dont start with the presumption that we have free will, what if we start with the presumption that God has foreknowledge. God knows youll choose chocolate and hence the proposition "you will choose chocolate" is true But the truth value of this proposition causes the probability of any other flavor being chosen to drop to 0% Why? Because if x will not occur then the chance that it will occur is 0%

@redbearwarrior4859 2 жыл бұрын

What about Jonathan Edwards view? I think he would except both premises and the conclusion, but that the conclusion is still compatible with free will because free will is the ability to choose according to our nature, inclinations, desires and motives. Which is compatible with not being able to do otherwise. Maybe it is in the options you gave and I missed it. Which is totally possible 😂 but still great video! Keep up the good work.

@TheAnalyticChristian 2 жыл бұрын

That is pretty much the 5th solution I mentioned in the video. I call it semi-compatibilism

@redbearwarrior4859 2 жыл бұрын

@@TheAnalyticChristian thanks I'll go back and watch it again.

@redbearwarrior4859 2 жыл бұрын

@@TheAnalyticChristian nice. I don't know how I missed that. I guess I'm not used to Edwardsian free will being described as sourcehood freedom, but that is exactly what it is. I'm actually ok with your Semicompatibilism option because I was already skeptical of the free will defense. I'm not a philosopher or anything but it always seemed to me that if I were walking down the street and I saw a man about to beat a woman to death that my response shouldn't be "Well I don't want to infringe on the would be killer's free will by stopping him." But that is what I understand the free will defense is saying YHWH's response is. He allows evil for the sake of free will. I just have never bought into that. And if free will is compatible with not being able to choose otherwise then free will cannot be the reason why there is evil in the world. Like I said before great video and keep up the good work.

@qaz-fi1id 2 жыл бұрын

@@redbearwarrior4859 I think if you question Gods reason for creating us, it would show why freewill is exists and that evil is a byproduct of it.

@redbearwarrior4859 2 жыл бұрын

@euthyphro dilemma I'm not so sure that the problem of evil is a defeater for the Abrahamic God. Being how the Abrahamic God actually takes credit for creating evil. Proverbs 16:4 "YHWH hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.", Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I YHWH do all these things.", Lamentations 3 37-38 "Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when Adonai commandeth it not? Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?", Amos 3:6 "Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? Shall there be evil in a city, and YHWH hath not done it?"

@tesfayerobeletesfaye2480 2 жыл бұрын

The argument for theological fatalism commits a fairly common logical fallacy which is identified by scholars like Plantinga and Wierenga! Necessarily if God foreknows x, then x will happen. God foreknows x. Therefore, x will necessarily happen. It is like reasoning: Necessarily, if Jones is a bachelor, Jones is unmarried. Jones is a bachelor. Therefore, Jones is necessarily unmarried. But Jones is not necessarily unmarried. He just is unmarried. He is perfectly free to be married; no necessity compels him to be unmarried. The valid form of the argument would thus read: Necessarily, if Jones is a bachelor, Jones is unmarried. Jones is a bachelor. Therefore, Jones is unmarried.” If this is fallacious argument logical fatalism is wrong and we don’t need a solutions!

@yourfutureself3392 2 жыл бұрын

The formulations presented in the video and in the description of the video don't committ that fallacy

@yourfutureself3392 2 жыл бұрын

Why do you call the fifth view 'semi'-compatibilism and not just soft determinism or standard compatibilism?

@MyContext 2 жыл бұрын

The argument is unsound due to ANY comment about "God" is necessarily assertion, since such is not sustained as anything other than belief. Thus, IF one denotes the argument as sound, it is ONLY in the sense of a "if this were the case" with the attendant notions predicated on that supposition. I reject the idea of free will due to it seems that every decision that we make is predicated on prior states of affairs. The moment I understood that we are not free, I had more consideration for the developmental state of the individual since each individual is actually comparable to an AI system with all the attendant issues of bad data (misinformation), bad algorithm (misunderstanding), and/or faulty processing (mental illness). Thus, in the removal of an individual, the issue becomes whether they can be remediated for a return to society or is permanent removal the only option for the well being of society.

@qaz-fi1id 2 жыл бұрын

Shut up

@MyContext 2 жыл бұрын

@@qaz-fi1id Vernal challenges?

@shrader88 2 жыл бұрын

Maybe I'm confused but I don't agree with the assumption that knowledge of something forces it to happen. For example if I know of a choice I made a year ago or even a day ago, it cannot change I know what happened. However if I was free to make the choice at the time, my knowledge of it now wouldn't change that fact. If we're able to go back in time.and tell someone 1000 years ago, their knowledge even though accurate doesn't constrain my choice. I (hypothetically) freely chose and they just knew about it, whether in the past or the future. Otherwise I Enjoyed the succinct and visual explanations.

@TheAnalyticChristian 2 жыл бұрын

There’s no premise in the main argument that says “knowledge of something forces it to happen.” There are only 2 premises in the main argument. Which one do you deny? If you deny premise 1, then it seems you are saying you have the power to change a belief God held 1,000 years ago. But in our experience, it seems like we don’t have the power to change the past. If you deny premise 2, then you are saying God is fallible, meaning he can hold false beliefs. So which premise do you deny and how do you respond to the challenge pops up based on the denial of that premise? I think the dependence view that I outlined in the video is the best way to respond to this argument, though I also think a lot can be said in favor of the semi-compatibilist response.

@shrader88 2 жыл бұрын

@@TheAnalyticChristian I would be denying premise 1. With the argument being that God simply knows what I am going to do regardless of which choice I make. So in a sense I do have a choice in the same way that I freely chose what to wear yesterday but today I know what that choice was, yet my knowledge of that didn't constrain my choice yesterday. So if God is either outside of time, or has perfect knowledge of future, assuming He is not interfering then His knowledge is simply a product of what I freely choose. This seems to essentially be a version of the dependence argument from the video.

@shrader88 2 жыл бұрын

@euthyphro dilemma Certainly our choices are constrained, but we also have degrees of freedom. You might give me a choice between x or y, and that choice is contingent on the options given, but I still have the freedom to choose between the two. It is hard for me to see that our choices are so constrained as to have zero degrees of freedom and therefore be fully determined, but maybe I'm missing something.

@shrader88 2 жыл бұрын

@euthyphro dilemma So am I correct in understanding that you believe due to genetic predisposition and environmental factors that our decisions are 100% constrained? If that is the case then wouldn't atheism or any Non-theistic world view be equally unjustified? You would simply hold that view because of your genetic predisposition and environmental factors, not because of the truth of it.

@phillwithskill1364 2 жыл бұрын

What about source incompatibilism/source libertarianism?

@TheAnalyticChristian 2 жыл бұрын

How will that response differ from the semi compatibilist response? Both accept the conclusion of the argument, and both say we still have free will

@phillwithskill1364 2 жыл бұрын

@@TheAnalyticChristian Yes both semicompatibilism and source libertarianism can accept the conclusion of the argument and say that we still have moral responsibility. Also, both views appeal to Frankfurt cases to deny the PAP. The difference between the two views is that semicompatibilism is a deterministic view and source libertarianism is an indeterministic view. Why might that matter? Because if semicompatibilism is true and God exists then likely theological determinism is true, and if that’s the case then it’s difficult to see how Calvinism isn’t true. One might not want to be forced into a Calvinist conception of God with its predestinarian entailments. Also, one might find determinism of any kind to be incompatible with moral responsibility. Source libertarianism is a way out for the person who agrees with the conclusion of the problem of divine foreknowledge and human freedom argument yet who doesn’t have Calvinistic or deterministic sympathies.

@TheAnalyticChristian 2 жыл бұрын

@@phillwithskill1364 thanks. I’m familiar with the difference between the two views. But in response to this argument, they function the same, so I feel like the source incompatiblist response is represented in the video. I was trying to keep the video as short as possible so I didn’t mention it.

@phillwithskill1364 2 жыл бұрын

@@TheAnalyticChristian Since the name of the view “source incompatibilism” wasn’t mentioned it gave the impression that incompatibilists don’t have a non-PAP solution whereas determinists/compatibilists do. I do understand now that you were trying to keep it short. I really enjoy these quick and to the point videos!

@SojournerDidimus 2 жыл бұрын

TIL I'm a semicompatibilist.

@richardbersch5524 2 жыл бұрын

The conclusion is a non-sequitur. The whole argument seems to ascribe causality for foreknowledge. If God knew one thousand years ago that you would choose, I repeat, choose to watch this video today...then God believed it because He knew what your choice would be in your future. There is actually some relativity going on here in that from your perspective YOU made the choice today, from HIS perspective you made your choice 1,000 years ago. But back to ascribing causality for foreknowledge. Let's say I'm in a long line waiting to buy tickets. My wife goes twenty people ahead of me to hold a friends place in line while they use the restroom. She says that in ten minutes she will return. I believe she will return in 10 minutes...and she returns in 10 minutes. Do you want to argue that she did not choose to return in 10 minutes because I knew 10 minutes before that she would return?