Free Will and Biblical Prophecy: Are They Mutually Exclusive?

I must admit that I had assumed that God's prophecies were immutable. But it seems he has come to the same conclusion as me and decided to keep things vague and variable. Just to be on the safe side (we wouldn't want God to get his prophecies in a twist now would we?)If God's prophecies are neither specific nor immutable (i.e. if they are vague and prone to change or error) then I totally agree that there is no effect whatsoever on free-will.I also think that they are pretty worthless as prophecies.I mean a prophecy that says "There will be battles. People will die.".....Hmmmmmm.Dude. Cmon. I could have come up with that prophecy!!So pick a prophecy that says immutably what a specific person will do or experience and then I will show you how their free-will has been compromised.Or does God not make specific and immutable prophecies? In which case we really have no disagreement.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi Straggler, You actually demonstrated nothing.Except you have an illusion of what foreknowledge is, as you have not a clue.I still have no idea where "immutable prophecy" came from.Because as in the Odin story Carl was allowed to make any decision he wanted to make. Odin did not interfere with any decision Carl made.Now since Odin could see the future as history he could see every decision Carl ever made. Yet Odin was never there to have any impact on what Carl did.Yet you claim that if Odin reveals the history before it happens he takes away Carls free will.You don't understand seeing history in advance.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Straggler, I gave a general and a specific in Message 160Ahab was general as no specifics were given.Hezekiah was specific. He was told he was going to die as he was sick unto death.But he prayed to God to heal him.Hezekiah was then told he had 15 years added.Even though God gave Hezekiah 15 more years Hezekiah did die.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi, Straggler. If Odin's perspective is from "within" the confines of time, then perhaps you're right (that is, if I understand what you're saying, which I won't claim is the case).However, if Odin's perspective is from "outside" of time, then surely the future would have to be represented by something; otherwise, Odin isn't really "outside" of time at all.I think Stile's argument isn't that the shape of Carl's timeline is controlled by Carl, but that one of several "pre-made" shapes is chosen by Carl at each juncture in the timeline. In this case, surely Odin would see all the possible shapes, because all are "the future" for Carl until he chooses one and discards the others.But, I think you're right that this debate suffers from poor terminology and non-intuitiveness.

---

-Bluejay/Mantis/ThylacosmilusDarwin loves you.

At what point was the free-will of man exerted in this example?If it is not how is it relevant to the effect of specific prophecy on man's free-will?We all die ICANT. There is no free-will involved. I thought you knew that......Are there any specific prophecies that relate to what a specific individual will do where they could supposedly choose not to?As opposed to dying. Which involves no free-will anyway...... Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

You don't understand the difference between seeing history as a complete whole and the conflict that this results in with regard to free-will if you go round inserting prophecy at specific points in that history.Let's take the example of Jesus death. Let's take this step by step so there can be no confusion.STEP By STEP EXAMPLE
1) God can see all of history as a whole and complete timeline. Right?2) He can see who kills Jesus. Right?3) God chooses to prophecise this and reveal it to man (this is an example to show the problem with prophecy ICANT - I am not saying God ever did prophecise specifically who would kill Jesus)4) At a point in history long before Jesus is even born God reveals who will kill Jesus and how this will happen. This is written down. This is an immutable prophecy. Is that OK?5) X will kill Jesus. This has been immutably and specifically foretold as well as written down as the word of God. (X = The names of the individual/s who brandish the whip, hammer the nails etc. etc. i.e. X = those directly responsible for Christ's physical death)6) A detailed specific and immutable prophecy has been foretold and recorded.****************************************************************
QUESTIONS
All OK so far?
No disagreement in principle with the possibility of this scenario?
You agree that God could do this if he so chose?
You also believe that he could do this without compromising free-will?
*****************************************************************STEP BY STEP EXAMPLE CONTINUED
7) Now from the human perspective of living through time Jesus is born, he does his miracles etc. etc. etc.8) At the point that X has to decide whether or not to kill Jesus what choices does X actually have?9) Can he/they choose to not kill Jesus thus making an immutable prophecy known for thousands of years previously, a prophecy recorded in history as the very word of God himself, untrue?10) Or is the only option available to fulfill the prophecy?Explain to me step by step, as I have done above, how X has any choice but to kill Jesus at that point without making God a liar.Show me exactly where I am wrong in saying that X has been denied free-will?And I do mean step by step and specifically. As I have done above.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

No. What Carl can do is not restricted because of anything Odin says or does. Odin does not restrict Carl's choices in any way.What I'm saying is that Carl just happens to freely decide to choose whatever choice also happens to fulfill the prophecy.And Odin, with his future seeing abilities... can see this as well. Yes Carl is locked into making the choice that Odin has seen. Only if Odin can see the future.. and therefore Odin is only seeing what Carl freely chooses on his own. This then means that Carl is only "locked" into whatever free choice Carl picks. I don't think it's very crucial, it only adds another iteration of what goes on and Odin's ability to see the future.Odin sees that Carl chooses #4 freely and without interference.
Carl cannot choose something other then what he chooses.
"What he chooses" is #4.
Therefore: Carl cannot choose something other then #4.
Odin tells Carl that he is going to choose #4.
Carl thinks about this information and decides to still choose #4, regardless of what Odin said.
Odin sees that Carl still chooses #4 freely and without interference.
Carl cannot choose something other then what he chooses, even with the added information.
"What he chooses with the added information" is #4.
Therefore: Carl cannot choose something other then #4.I'm not saying that this is the only possible scenario... obvious Carl could very well choose #1, #2, #3 or #5 before or after Odin talks to him. However, those scenarios aren't very interesting since we then both agree that Carl has free will, Generally and In Principle.What I'm saying is that in the very possible scenario that Carl keeps choosing #4 anyway, of his own free choice with no intereference... if Odin can see the future, it results with a freely made choice with no alternatives before the decision is actually made. Add in another "omnipotent" ability to Odin such that he can forsee that if he tells Carl the information, then Carl will still freely choose #4... and it gets even stranger.Basically, it comes down to "If a being can actually see the future... does anyone still have free will?" I say yes (In Principle) and everyone else seems to be saying no (using the General definition).

Because their presence is not an interference. The point of defining something as a "passive observer" is to say that they don't change anything. How are they a passive observer if their is a change because of their presence? It's a strict contradiction of definitions.I think your "timeline" includes more then what I think is in one. I'm really only considering free-will decisions within the timeline I'm thinking of.That is, if someone likes chocolate because it's "really good" and someone else likes chocolate because it's "really, really good", and they both make free-willed decisions, then I would consider their timeline for such a choice to be identical. That is, they choose the exact same thing for the exact same reason (because it is their free-willed choice, with no interference). Why is reversing time necessary to the situation? Perhaps we can move onto adding a reversing-time scenario after we finish with what we're already talking about? I would say no. Reverse-time-Carl does not need to slavishly follow first-time-Carl's timeline. The random part of Carl's decisions (no matter how small) would allow for some sort of variance. No, it would make Odin's previous future view obsolete. Now, Odin can make another future view on the new reverse-time-Carl, who himself (if we're still speaking Perspective-2 stuff, which I am...) has a static future timeline that Odin can see. These questions are never answered. They are simply a part of my premise."IF Odin is capable of seeing the future..."This is just a thought exercise beyond that sentence, I am not saying anything about "the real world." I've been saying from the very beginning that I'm only considering an idea where we have an Odin who is capable of seeing the future. I have no idea how such an ability would work either, it is likely impossible. However, thinking about it is not impossible... that's what this scenario is for... thinking about the consequences if we have a being who can see the actual, real future. I don't answer that question. I don't attempt to answer that question. That question is a given assumption leading into the scenario I'm providing.IF we have an Odin who can see the actual, real future... how does that ability alone restrict Carl from making his own free-willed choices? I argue that it does not. However, IF we do have an Odin that can see the future (perhaps such a thing is impossible and the consequences are irrelevent)... then we're left with Odin knowing exactly what Carl is going to choose (freely). IF Odin knows exactly what Carl is freely going to choose... then there are no alternatives, Carl is going to choose what Odin sees. This conclusion very well may be irrelevent if seeing the future is an impossibility... however, it does not prevent the simple thought exercise.

I don't understand this statement. The Odin I'm thinking of can "see the future", and the effects that has on Carl's free will are as I've been saying all along. I did not introduce Perspective 1 and 2, I do not understand what difference you are trying to show with them... that's what I'm asking you about.What I'm talking about seems to be something closer to what you call Perspective 2. However, I am at a loss to say how you think a Perspective-1 Odin is not capable of using Perspective 2, or that Perspective 2 can somehow "go away" if Odin "chooses" not to use it. I really have no clue as to how you are thinking about these perspectives. The closest I can get to is to say that even if Odin "chooses" not to "use" Perspective 2, it still exists, and all consequences from it are still in play.However, I'm willing to just forget about Perspective 1 altogether since I really don't understand what you are trying to reference with it.

quote:

---

No. What Carl can do is not restricted because of anything Odin says or does. Odin does not restrict Carl's choices in any way.

---

Then it must be the case that Carl can choose to do otherwise.

quote:

---

What I'm saying is that Carl just happens to freely decide to choose whatever choice also happens to fulfill the prophecy.

---

In other words Carl's "free" choice is restricted so that he CANNOT go against the prophecy, even though the situation is not the one in which Odin saw him making the choice.So which is it ? Is Carl's choice restricted or not ?

I understand your point. And I agree with it entirely. I would say your point like this:If we have an Odin who can see all possible futures from all people's freely made deicions, then free will is not removed in General or In Principle.What I'm talking about is this:If we have an Odin who can see THE future (the choices we all freely make), then free will is removed in General (no more alternatives) however it remains In Principle (no one interferes with our choices in any way).I really do not think it's a difficult point.I'm not saying that such a being exists.
I'm not saying that the ability to see THE future is even possible.I'm just moving forward with a thought-exercise.The conclusion is "hey... that's most likely impossible in practice because of the nature of how time and "the future" actually work... but theoretically speaking yes, that is the conclusion." This "different type of insight" is what I'm calling the ability to see the future. What would you call it?You can think of my scenario as "IF a different type of insight was used by a being to identify the exact results of our freely made decisions, then..." if it makes you feel better. I was attempting to use your terminology to better explain what it is I'm thinking of. Perhaps I failed to guess at what you meant by the term "railroad." I certainly meant it in pretty much the opposite way you used it (Carl's free decisions as opposed to someone else forcing him to do something), that's why I added the quotation marks.

Sure he could, as far as Carl's concerned he has 5 alternatives.
But, if Odin can see the future, Odin knows what Carl is going to decide. In that sense there are no alternatives, Odin knows that Carl is going to freely decide. Carl's "free" choice is not restricted by the prophecy, it is restricted because he has to choose one. Which he does, and Odin can see which one. That's exactly the question I use to show my case:If we look at it from Carl's sense... Carl is not restricted. Carl can choose whatever he freely desires. Carl has free will In Pinciple and in General.If we look at it from Odin's sense... Carl is restricted. Carl is going to choose what Odin sees Carl is going to choose (given Odin can see the actual future). There are no alternatives. There is no free will in General. However, since Carl is still making the choice all by himself with no interference, I say that free will still exists In Principle.That's why I think the In Principle definition of free will better serves then the General defintion. The General definition is inadequate and lacking.

quote:

---

Carl's "free" choice is not restricted by the prophecy, it is restricted because he has to choose one. Which he does, and Odin can see which one.

---

According to you Carl MUST decide to take choice #4 even if the conditions under which he WOULD have made that choice have changed. That IS a restriction on free will - in fact it's fatalism.

quote:

---

If we look at it from Odin's sense... Carl is restricted. Carl is going to choose what Odin sees Carl is going to choose (given Odin can see the actual future). There are no alternatives. There is no free will in General. However, since Carl is still making the choice all by himself with no interference, I say that free will still exists In Principle.

---

If there were no interference Cal should be able to decide differently because the conditions have changed. According to you SOMETHING is at work to prevent that.

But I don't put the last line on my implementation.I simply have this:1. Carl's timeline is shaped by Carl's choices.
2. Odin knows Carl's future choices because he knows the shape of Carl's whole timeline.That's the premise.From the view of 1, we can see that Carl has free decisions... even alternatives.From the view of 2, if Odin knows Carl's future (because he knows the shape of Carl's whole timeline), then Odin knows which choice Carl is going to make. Odin does not shape Carl's timeline, Odin simply sees the future. And, if Odin knows what Carl is going to freely choose, then as far as Odin is concerned Carl has no alternatives. However, since the decisions of Carl are still made freely, I say Carl has free will In Principle. I think those who say "alternatives" are the foundation of free will are simply using an inadequate definition. This is likely true in a practical sense. However, we are simply thinking about a theoretical scenario. What if some being could actually see the future? It's just a theoretical question.

What are you talking about? I do not say that. I say Carl has an entirely new free choice to make. However, it's certainly possible for Carl to continue to choose choice #4. And, if he does, then the added information becomes irrelevent.Let's say this... let's say Carl get the prediction info from Odin and decides to "screw that Odin bastard" and picks #2. Does Carl have free will? Yes, of course he does.So, why doesn't Carl keep his free will if he says "hey, I don't care what Odin saya, I still want #4 because it's what I want?" Carl certainly is able to decide differently. It's a free choice. But this doesn't mean he HAS TO decide differently either. He certanily can freely decide to choose the exact same thing. And that's what I'm talking about... when Carl freely chooses the exact same thing anyway.SOMETHING certainly is at work... Carl's free decision making process. In fact, if you are RESTRICTING Carl from still choosing #4 if that's what he in fact still wants.. then it is YOU who are removing free will.