henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jan 06, 2024 5:47 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jan 06, 2024 5:33 pmI would say that whether or not anybody knows what you do has no impact on what you do.
God is not just anybody.
That's for sure. But it doesn't change the equation. As I was suggesting, even if my knowledge of your choice is 100% right, it wouldn't imply I made you choose anything.
I think the problem is that we imagine choices as being rather deterministically linear. There's only one choice in a linear situation. And that troubles us, because we think that God knowing would mean he had to make us make the choice we made. But that's just not logical.
And I think that the real-world situation is dichotomous, polychotomous...we have many choices, in most situations, several; and we choose from among a range of possibilities, not from one yes-or-no choice. So what God sees must be rather like a "web" of possibilities, along which we are free to travel in the direction we choose, among those choices really possible to us. And God, being omniscient, is not at all baffled by the complexity of this situation, but can tell us not only what we should choose, or what we might choose that would be equally good, or what we will choose, but also what we should not choose, what would be worse or better to choose, what routes will eventually land us in this or that situation, and so on.
It would indeed take a God to manage all of that data, all at once. But He's God, of course.
And I have Biblical precedents for that very thing. For God not only clearly knows what choices men will make, but on occasion, tells them what
would have happened if their choices had been different. That would be impossible, unless the world were more like what I'm describing than like the linear-choice model.
I know it takes a few minutes to get one's head around this. The linear model's just so easy to understand...and that's one of the things that makes determinism so attractive to so many people. It just looks so...understandable, so simple, so common sensical, that they're drawn to it. And it makes the controversy between the
could be and the
is just so...manageable. But I think that's actually its liability: it's far TOO simple to be accurate or useful at all in describing the reality in which we live. But it takes a bit of a paradigm shift to get one's head out of the old linear model and to conceive of the world as more complex.
Maybe try to think of it in terms of marriage partners. In that situation, you get a choice: you can marry Millie, Tillie, Cheryl, Sharon, Betty, Veronica...and any number of other women. It's not just "Betty, or nothing." But "nothing" is always an option, too, of course.
Now, once you pick Betty, the rest are out -- at least so far as being your first wife is concerned. And plausibly, Tillie, Cheryl and Sharon will marry other men, and be completely out of the possiblities forever. But if you marry Betty, you'll become a construction engineer, because you need to pay the bills; whereas Cheryl would encourage you to become a professional harmonica player, and Tillie would want you to try out for the NBA...so your life will go down vastly different paths, depending on which wife you choose. And Veronica may eventually become your third wife, but by that time you'll be retired from your job as construction engineer and be more concerned with grandchildren...and all of that, I might be able to tell you in advance -- if I were God -- but it will not constrain your choices at all, either way. I just happen to know what you'll freely choose, before even you do. But you're still perfectly free as to your choices.