Can there be free will while God knows all things?

[Eydis]

29 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

I see "the problem".  You think that just because you see time as an ordered sequence - you cannot understand or comprehend that from another platform (different space-time dimension) that is not at all what is happening.   @Colirio quotes Elder Neal A. Maxwell implying that G-d see the future as now.  The scientific concept is a little deeper in that one would not just see but experience the future as now.  It is not that difficult to think it possible to experience the past as we do the now but it is very difficult for some to understand the possibility that even the future can be experienced as now. 

I would add on other interesting scripture in Isaiah 46:10. Not only does G-d know all things from the beginning to the end but he foretells (prophesies or lets man know) or as it is said in Amos 3:7 – that G-d does not do anything unless he informs his prophets first.

 

The Traveler

I don't interpret any of what is in Elder Neal A. Maxwell's talk as "experiencing" the future as if it is now.  The scriptures say things like "sees" it as if it is now, or made manifest.  There is a difference.  God can see the glory in some future act which becomes purpose and a work and then as it comes to pass the glory from that act is experienced and obtained or brought to pass.  I think the jump from seeing, even seeing as if it is now to experiencing it as if it has taken place is a big jump that changes everything we know about our reasons even to be here.

Hypothetically, if God has "experienced" all, for all time, then how does He increase in glory and works? Or is God stagnant for you?

Also, if God's experience never changes then He would not be emotional or express any different emotion than He is currently expressing. God would just be one emotion all the time, never added and never increasing.

The other thing to consider is that if God could re-experience something that is glorious than all He would need to do is re-experience a single act over and over again to increase in glory without doing more works.  There must be a reason why His works are works without end.

[Rob Osborn]

On 3/10/2017 at 10:10 AM, Traveler said:

 

I see "the problem".  You think that just because you see time as an ordered sequence - you cannot understand or comprehend that from another platform (different space-time dimension) that is not at all what is happening.   @Colirio quotes Elder Neal A. Maxwell implying that G-d see the future as now.  The scientific concept is a little deeper in that one would not just see but experience the future as now.  It is not that difficult to think it possible to experience the past as we do the now but it is very difficult for some to understand the possibility that even the future can be experienced as now. 

I would add on other interesting scripture in Isaiah 46:10. Not only does G-d know all things from the beginning to the end but he foretells (prophesies or lets man know) or as it is said in Amos 3:7 – that G-d does not do anything unless he informs his prophets first.

 

The Traveler

Only the present can exist as a physical place and reality. Seeing into the past or future does not mean it exists as a real physical place in the present, but more like a movie. With the future, I believe that movie changes all the time based off of peoples choices in the present. Thus why the Lord gives either this/either that revelations based off of what actually unfolds as events and decisions play out.

[Traveler]

10 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Only the present can exist as a physical place and reality. Seeing into the past or future does not mean it exists as a real physical place in the present, but more like a movie. With the future, I believe that movie changes all the time based off of peoples choices in the present. Thus why the Lord gives either this/either that revelations based off of what actually unfolds as events and decisions play out.

 

Your stance has been absolutely demonstrated, at the quantum level, to be at best incomplete and at worse false if I understand you correctly.  If you were more open to things, perhaps difficult to comprehend for a two-dimensional mind, we could go much deeper with this subject.  Are you at least willing to accept that time is not linear (meaning constant) meaning that time varies significantly when subjected to various force fields.  And that time is not continuous and thus cannot be an actual dimension of continuous space?

Be very thoughtful with your answer – based on your previous statements the above could be “trick” questions.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

 

Your stance has been absolutely demonstrated, at the quantum level, to be at best incomplete and at worse false if I understand you correctly.  If you were more open to things, perhaps difficult to comprehend for a two-dimensional mind, we could go much deeper with this subject.  Are you at least willing to accept that time is not linear (meaning constant) meaning that time varies significantly when subjected to various force fields.  And that time is not continuous and thus cannot be an actual dimension of continuous space?

Be very thoughtful with your answer – based on your previous statements the above could be “trick” questions.

 

The Traveler

Okay. Im going to use different language. 

I believe in cause and effect where "A" happens which then effects and causes "B" to happen and then when we get to event "C" we can say that events A,B already happened, C is currently happening and D,E,F,... are yet to happen. Its in the process that the past has already happened, the present, which was a cause of past events, is currently happening and the future is yet to happen but will play out acvording to events now happening.

Hope that cleared things up.

[Guest]

On March 9, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Traveler said:

time is not linear but

Wibbly wobbly, timey wimey stuff. 

[Traveler]

5 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Okay. Im going to use different language. 

I believe in cause and effect where "A" happens which then effects and causes "B" to happen and then when we get to event "C" we can say that events A,B already happened, C is currently happening and D,E,F,... are yet to happen. Its in the process that the past has already happened, the present, which was a cause of past events, is currently happening and the future is yet to happen but will play out acvording to events now happening.

Hope that cleared things up.

 

I do not disagree with what you are trying to say but in the quantum weirdness of particle physics we know that A and B must always happen in a certain way to cause C but then we will occasionally observe C occur in our space time before A and B.  However, when that happens; A and B will always occur later in the manner that will cause C and C will not reoccur.

 

The Traveler

Edited March 13, 2017 by Traveler

[Colirio]

For those who want to understand, here is a great resource for study about the matter in the D&C Student Manual:

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/sections-122-131/section-130-items-of-instruction?lang=eng

 

Here's a quote from the manual that helps us understand:

 

"D&C 130:4–7. The Relativity of Time

Several scriptures suggest that the way we perceive time on earth may not be the way time really is throughout the universe. Alma 40:8suggests that only men measure time and that to God all time is as one day. Other scriptures suggest that all things are present before the Lord (see D&C 38:2; Moses 1:6). Verses 4–7 in section 130 suggest a similar concept, namely that past, present, and future are continually before the Lord and that time is relative to the planet on which one resides.

In the twentieth century, the field of physics began to speak about time and space in a way that may help explain these revelatory statements. Albert Einstein, in the early part of this century, developed what is known as the theory of relativity. Einstein postulated that what men had assumed were absolutes in the physical world—space, gravity, speed, motion, time—were not absolutes at all but were interrelated with each other. That is why the theory was called the theory of relativity. Physicists now agree that a person’s time reference will vary depending on his relative position in space.

According to Einstein’s theory, if a body moves at very fast speeds (those approaching the speed of light, which is 186,000 miles per second), that body’s time slows down in relation to the time of a body that is on earth; and for the body in motion, space contracts or shrinks. In other words, time and space are not two separate things but are interrelated. Physicists refer to this as the space-time continuum. If an astronaut were to journey out into space at speeds approaching the speed of light, though to himself all would seem perfectly normal, to someone on earth it would appear as though his clock were ticking slower, his heart were beating slower, his metabolism operating slower, and so on. He would actually age more slowly than would a person who remained on the earth. Though the finite mind tends to reject such concepts, Einstein’s theory suggests that reality to us is a product of our relative position in the space-time continuum.

According to this theory, if a being achieved the speed of light, to that being all space would contract to the point that it would be “here” for him, and all time would slow down until it became “now” for him. The theory of relativity thus may suggest how, for a being of light and glory like God, all space and all time could be present. As difficult as such a concept is to understand, increasingly sophisticated experiments continue to substantiate Einstein’s theoretical description of the realities of the universe.

Lael Woodbury, dean of the College of Fine Arts and Communications at Brigham Young University, talked about man’s perception of time and God’s perception of time in an address sponsored by the Church Educational System:

“The evidence suggests that God … perceives time as we perceive space. That’s why ‘all things are before him, and all things are round about him; and he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things’ [D&C 88:41]. Time, like space, is ‘continually before the Lord.’ …

“… Right now we perceive music in time as a blind man perceives form in space—sequentially. He explores with his fingers, noting form, texture, contours, rhythms. He holds each perception in his mind, one by one, carefully adding one to the other, until he synthesizes his concept of what that space object must be like. You and I don’t do that. We perceive a space object immediately. We simply look at it, and to a certain degree we ‘know it. We do [not] go through a one-by-one, sequential, additive process. We perceive that it is, and we are able to distinguish it from any other object.

“I’m suggesting that God perceives time as instantaneously as we perceive space. For us, time is difficult. Lacking higher facility, we are as blind about time as a sightless man is about space. We perceive time in the same way that we perceive music—sequentially. We explore rhythm, pitch, amplitude, texture, theme, harmonies, parallels, and contrasts. And from our perceptions we synthesize our concept of the object or event—the musical artwork—that existed in its entirety before we began our examination of it.

“Equally complete now is each of our lives before the Lord. We explore them sequentially because we are time-blind. But the Lord, perceiving time as space, sees us as we are, not as we are becoming. We are, for him, beings without time. We are continually before him—the totality of our psyches, personalities, bodies, choices, and behaviors.” (Continually before the Lord, Commissioner’s Lecture Series [Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 1974], pp. 5–6.)"

[Rob Osborn]

9 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

I do not disagree with what you are trying to say but in the quantum weirdness of particle physics we know that A and B must always happen in a certain way to cause C but then we will occasionally observe C occur in our space time before A and B.  However, when that happens; A and B will always occur later in the manner that will cause C and C will not reoccur.

 

The Traveler

I believe you see the illusion of what appears to be the future happening in the present but in reality its just a misunderstanding of phsics. Can you provide proof to what you are saying?

[Traveler]

31 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I believe you see the illusion of what appears to be the future happening in the present but in reality its just a misunderstanding of phsics. Can you provide proof to what you are saying?

 

To quote a infamous politician – “What difference would it make?”   There is a saying - to convince a person against their will and they will be of the same opinion still,

 

The Traveler

Edited March 13, 2017 by Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

3 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

To quote a infamous politician – “What difference would it make?”

 

The Traveler

I mean you either can show proof or not. Its up to you.

[Rob Osborn]

You arent speaking of the double slit or the delayed choice experiments are you?

[Traveler]

15 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I mean you either can show proof or not. Its up to you.

My question - what will you do if proof is provided?  Alter your view of G-d? 

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

Just now, Traveler said:

My question - what will you do if proof is provided?  Alter your view of G-d? 

 

The Traveler

Im never completely settled on anything. I am always open to new ideas. 

[anatess2]

34 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Im never completely settled on anything. I am always open to new ideas. 

This isn't the impression I got of you, Rob.

[Guest MormonGator]

40 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Im never completely settled on anything. I am always open to new ideas. 

No you aren't. You are only "open" to ideas that you already agree with. 

Edited March 13, 2017 by MormonGator

[Rob Osborn]

8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This isn't the impression I got of you, Rob.

I am strongly opinionated its true. But I have changed opinions on things frim time to time.

[Rob Osborn]

This just happens to be one of my dearest topics and it just may be a lil "harder" to change my opinion.

[Guest MormonGator]

@Rob Osborn-

You might very well be open minded and willing to change your mind,  Perhaps the question you need to ask yourself is "Why do people think I am not open minded? Am I behaving in a certain way that makes people think that?" 

[Rob Osborn]

10 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

@Rob Osborn-

You might very well be open minded and willing to change your mind,  Perhaps the question you need to ask yourself is "Why do people think I am not open minded? Am I behaving in a certain way that makes people think that?" 

Its funny that those who think that are usually the very ones who also arent open minded on the very same subject. Its kinda a two way street.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Its funny that those who think that are usually the very ones who also arent open minded on the very same subject. Its kinda a two way street.

We agree, but that's also a way to make yourself feel better.

If someone says to me, "Gator, you swear too much." And I say "Yes, but you do too." I'm saying that to make myself feel better and remind them that they aren't perfect either. But that doesn't take away from the fact that the person leveling the accusation against me might be right. I feel like I'm in fifth grade again when people say "Pot calling kettle! I win! Ha ha ha!" And I hear it all. the. time. 

Just saying that the accuser is guilty of something doesn't mean that you aren't. It's of way of trying to excuse your own actions. 
 

Edited March 13, 2017 by MormonGator

[Colirio]

On 3/8/2017 at 2:11 PM, Rob Osborn said:

Its pretty vague actually. We could quote prophet against prophet, scripture against scripture saying opposite things. 

Open minded?

 

I took your answer to me that you simply intended to debate the matter.

 

The truth is, Rob, I personally have no need to debate the answer. I have already felt the Spirit bear witness that the words of Elder Maxwell, the scriptures, and the Savior are true. 

 

The only reason I wanted to help you, or anyone else understand is because the logical conclusion of your reasoning is that God could potentially be wrong in His assertions. It completely undermines the confidence we, as His sons and daughters, could have in His words to us. 

 

Once again, Elder Maxwell:

 

"When we understand that all things are present before His eyes and that He knows all things past, present, and future, then we can trust ourselves to Him as we clearly could not to a less than omniscient god who is off somewhere in the firmament doing further
research." (Neal A. Maxwell, All These Things Shall Give Thee
Experience, pp. 36-37.)

[Rob Osborn]

58 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

We agree, but that's also a way to make yourself feel better.

If someone says to me, "Gator, you swear too much." And I say "Yes, but you do too." I'm saying that to make myself feel better and remind them that they aren't perfect either. But that doesn't take away from the fact that the person leveling the accusation against me might be right. I feel like I'm in fifth grade again when people say "Pot calling kettle! I win! Ha ha ha!" And I hear it all. the. time. 

Just saying that the accuser is guilty of something doesn't mean that you aren't. It's of way of trying to excuse your own actions. 
 

And your point?

We both agree were not well open minded. Thats a no brainer.

[Rob Osborn]

10 minutes ago, Colirio said:

Open minded?

 

I took your answer to me that you simply intended to debate the matter.

 

The truth is, Rob, I personally have no need to debate the answer. I have already felt the Spirit bear witness that the words of Elder Maxwell, the scriptures, and the Savior are true. 

 

The only reason I wanted to help you, or anyone else understand is because the logical conclusion of your reasoning is that God could potentially be wrong in His assertions. It completely undermines the confidence we, as His sons and daughters, could have in His words to us. 

 

Once again, Elder Maxwell:

 

"When we understand that all things are present before His eyes and that He knows all things past, present, and future, then we can trust ourselves to Him as we clearly could not to a less than omniscient god who is off somewhere in the firmament doing further
research." (Neal A. Maxwell, All These Things Shall Give Thee
Experience, pp. 36-37.)

As long as we agree that the actual past is in a literal past, having already happened, the present is currently happening and the actual future has not yet come to pass for God, then we can agree.

[anatess2]

25 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

As long as we agree that the actual past is in a literal past, having already happened, the present is currently happening and the actual future has not yet come to pass for God, then we can agree.

Rob, we can't agree when it comes to putting limits on God.  In God, everything is possible.  @Vort's "favorite" riddle is to ask if God is so powerful that He can create a rock so heavy even He can't lift it.  God works with the laws of nature so that if there is such a thing as something with infinite mass and that it can be lifted, then God can create a rock with infinite mass and still be able to lift it.  But that's impossible, people exclaim.  The limit is in man's understanding of the laws of nature.  We've advanced so far as a human species in our understanding of God's creation but we haven't yet advanced so far as to define something with infinite mass and another thing of infinite strength that can lift it.   That's our limitation, not God's.

The same thing here.  WE ARE limited in our understanding of time.  So, to set the same limitations on God just because we can't comprehend it is doing God an injustice.  The proof you ask of Traveler, therefore, is irrelevant.  Whether there is proof or not is irrelevant.  What is relevant is... we cannot claim that we know everything there is to know about this thing called Time, therefore, we cannot hold God to the same limitations.

Edited March 13, 2017 by anatess2

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Rob, we can't agree when it comes to putting limits on God.  In God, everything is possible.  @Vort's "favorite" riddle is to ask if God is so powerful that He can create a rock so heavy even He can't lift it.  God works with the laws of nature so that if there is such a thing as something with infinite mass and that it can be lifted, then God can create a rock with infinite mass and still be able to lift it.  But that's impossible, people exclaim.  The limit is in man's understanding of the laws of nature.  We've advanced so far as a human species in our understanding of God's creation but we haven't yet advanced so far as to define something with infinite mass and another thing of infinite strength that can lift it.   That's our limitation, not God's.

The same thing here.  WE ARE limited in our understanding of time.  So, to set the same limitations on God just because we can't comprehend it is doing God an injustice.  The proof you ask of Traveler, therefore, is irrelevant.  Whether there is proof or not is irrelevant.  What is relevant is... we cannot claim that we know everything there is to know about this thing called Time, therefore, we cannot hold God to the same limitations.

If we both agree that God works within laws then we must therefore also both agree that God cannot possibly do something outside of those laws he works within. This then means that all things being possible with God is indeed true as long as the understanding is modified to mean "within Gods laws, all things are possible". 

Because we know that God too has his own reckoning of time and that it takes time, as defined by reckoning and sequencial events, then it is obvious that part of Gods laws that he works with is the reality that God too has a past, where things happened, a present, which state he is currently in, and a future of which has yet to unfold.