Can God know the Future?

[TK]

good one darin! i lost track of Lost a couple of seasons ago but i get what you are saying.

TK

[darinhouston]

good one darin! i lost track of Lost a couple of seasons ago but i get what you are saying.

TK

It's almost completely taken this season by questions such as whether someone in the past can actually change their future (and the like).

[Paidion]

Well, that's just it. If your view is correct, God is actually NOT a PERFECT predictor.

Ahhh, but He is! He is a perfect predictor because He knows all the facts. That's what I mean by "perfect predictor". I DO NOT MEAN "a predictor whose predictions always come true". That would not be a "predictor" at all, but would be one with a knowledge of the future (which I have already shown to be impossible). We, unlike God, are not perfect predictors because we don't know all the facts.

If He sometimes guesses wrong, there is then room for improvement. So obviously God hasn't reached perfection yet!

God doesn't guess. Why do you refer to predicting as "guessing"? If you toss a die, I might guess that "six" will turn up. But when a weather bureau predicts the weather they are not guessing (though sometimes it seem like it ) The have a number of physical facts: wind speed and direction, condition of the clouds, change in atmospheric pressure, etc. upon which the base their prediction. I had no data at all upon which to base my guess that six would turn up when you tossed the die.

About your raising your hand - either I have a really bad case of deja-vu, or we have discussed this before - and I still have a problem following that logic.

Keep thinking! By rereading the argument, and thinking, you will follow. I think TK has begun to understand.

How about we change your wording a little bit:

If we assume that future choices can be known, are we faced with a contradiction?

1. If it is known that I will raise my hand in 15 minutes, then I will not refrain from raising my hand at that time. For if I do refrain from raising my hand in 15 minutes, then it was not known that I will raise it! (naturally. in that case it would have been known that you will NOT raise it).

Your last statement contradicts the initial assumption that it was known that I will raise my hand in 15 minutes. Hence a contradiction!

2. If it is known that I will not raise my hand in 15 minutes, then I would not raise my hand at that time. For if I do raise my hand in 15 minutes, then it would have been known that I will not refrain from raising it!

Contradiction again!

3. Either I will raise my hand in 15 minutes or I will not raise it in 15 minutes.

4. Therefore either I will not refrain form raising my hand in 15 minutes or I will not raise my hand in 15 minutes.

5. In either case there is something I will not do.

6. I have the power of choice to either raise my hand in 15 minutes or refrain from raising it at that time.

7. Whichever choice I make, will be the one that God will know about. But it's still my choice.

#7 is a contradiction. You are working backwards in time. It's like saying that if I perform a certain action, I can change the past.

We must begin with God's past knowledge if He has it.

But we don't have to bring God into this at all. The argument still holds true without talking about foreknowledge at all. If it is simply TRUE now that I will raise my hand in 15 minutes, then I cannot refrain from raising my hand in 15 minutes ---- and the same for the converse.
So It is neither true nor false that I will raise my hand in 15 minutes. This statement will become true or false only after I make the decision in 15 minutes.

- I have a choice between an apple and a banana. I choose banana.
- God knew the choice I would make, and let's say He told this to my son yesterday for some reason.
- Today, it's not that I CANNOT choose the apple, it's that I DID NOT. Because God knew I would choose a banana, that's what He told my son.
- IT WAS MY CHOICE. If Ichoose the apple, God would have known that, and told my son.
It is still my choice.

Backwards causation again. If you choose the apple, you cause God to have known that you chose the apple. But when you consider the time sequence, then you would see that if God knew you would choose the banana, then you could not have chosen the apple.

It seems a perfectly simple concept to me, and not contradictory at all.

Well, I'm glad that you can be psychologically comfortable with the idea that statements about the future have present truth value. For me, the inherent contradiction is insurmountable and defies logic itself.

[RV]

If the future doesn't exist, prayer seems to make a lot of sense. James said, "you have not because you ask not." The question that comes to mind is: Does prayer change things? If it does, does the future actually exist?

[Suzana]

Keep thinking! By rereading the argument, and thinking, you will follow. I think TK has begun to understand.

Well, I'm glad that you can be psychologically comfortable with the idea that statements about the future have present truth value. For me, the inherent contradiction is insurmountable and defies logic itself.

I can see why you think my statements are contradictory; I did say I mangled yours up!

I think I can sort of understand how you arrive at your conclusions; what I don't believe is that our concept of logic is exactly the same as God's - or at least that we may not have all the components available to God to put into the equation. Perhaps our understanding may be necessarily limited in this present age.

It's an interesting discussion (good to hear others' thoughts too) but for now, for me, I might need to put this into the too-hard basket.

Psalms 139:6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it. (KJV)

[Paidion]

Before anyone gets the chance to correct me, let me say that I was wrong in suggesting that there is causation involved here, either forwards or backwards. Please ignore my statements to that effect. I was caught up in the way I felt.

Nevertheless, it is still the case that if a sentence is NOW true that person P will freely do action A at a future time T, then P cannot do otherwise at time T. The same thing if the sentence is NOW false. So if sentences about the future are neither true nor false, then they cannot be known in advance. For only that which is true or false can be known. If a sentence is neither true nor false, there is nothing to know.

[Allyn]

Before anyone gets the chance to correct me, let me say that I was wrong in suggesting that there is causation involved here, either forwards or backwards. Please ignore my statements to that effect. I was caught up in the way I felt.

Nevertheless, it is still the case that if a sentence is NOW true that person P will freely do action A at a future time T, then P cannot do otherwise at time T. The same thing if the sentence is NOW false. So if sentences about the future are neither true nor false, then they cannot be known in advance. For only that which is true or false can be known. If a sentence is neither true nor false, there is nothing to know.

I think your statement is neither true nor false but yet I know you said it.

[Paidion]

I think your statement is neither true nor false but yet I know you said it.

If I made a statement, then it is either true or false, for all statements are either true or false.

Sentences about the future are neither true nor false; thus they are not statements. I call them "metastatements" since they are in the form of statements, but are not statements at all.

[dean198]

This is not a question of God's omniscience. Open theists believe that God knows all things.
This is a question about reality. Does the future exist NOW? No, it doesn't. So there's nothing to know.

oh man, this one little sentence is in danger of turning me into an open theist

[Homer]

Paidion,

Can a statement about something that is predicted will occur next week have "false value" today?

You wrote:

If I made a statement, then it is either true or false, for all statements are either true or false.

And you contradict yourself here, for an assertion is a statement regardless of whether it is factual or not. Kind of reminds me about your dissertations on the meaning of aionios:

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

God bless, your baptized brother, Homer