Free Will and Biblical Prophecy: Are They Mutually Exclusive?

In the Sacrifice thread I asked whether or not Jesus had free-will regarding his crucifixion. Message 55None of the theists in that thread were able to adequately answer that question.The problem is this:

An infallible source of immutable truth has made it known that a certain future event will take place.

The key person in that event must at one point take the necessary “decisions” and actions in order for this event to actually physically occur.

This person is fully aware of the destiny that awaits him as a matter of immutable truth.

This predicted immutable truth is also known to many others and is indeed a matter of public record.

​

How can the individual involved be said to have “free-will” regarding this event?
They can only “decide” to take a single course of action. The sole course of action that results in the immutable future truth. How could this person even have the ability to do anything else given the immutability of the truth in question?

​

If free-will is not the ability to choose between alternate future outcomes what is it?

​

More generally - If we, as humans, can know certain future events as a matter of God given certainty how can we be said to have free-will regarding the actions required to make those outcomes happen?

​

Surely we cannot?

​

Does Biblical prophecy therefore necessarily compromise the whole idea of man's free-will?

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The point of immutable prophecy is that there is no choice.Whether you believe that your actions are of your own choosing, whether you have the illusion of free-will, is not the point. In the absence of genuine choice at the point of making a decsion how can free-will be claimed?If ones actions are immutably known before the "decision" to take them then even if the actions taken are those that the deciding agent "wants" then it just means that the wants and desires of the "deciding" agent are as predetermined as the actions themselves.You are effectively saying that everybody can know what someone wants before he even knows the choice that needs to be taken.How can that be free-will by any definition?

.Alternate future outcomes? What "alternate future outcomes" are there if the future is known as an immutable truth? None. Obviously. Because in the face of an immutable truth there are no alternatives possible.How can free-will exist if only one future outcome, one "decision", one "choice" is even possible?There is no choice to make under such circumstances.There is no free-will by any definition.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

OK.At what point in his life did Jesus make the decision to be crucified?
At what point in the bible is he notified of his fate and what is his reaction (feel free to quote the appropriate passages to me - I am keen to hear)?Can man exert his freewill such that future biblical prophecies can be avoided?If the future is known with absolute certainty how can we have the "opportunity to choose"?

Yes OK Yes it has. All other possibilities have been removed.For choice to exist there has to be more than one possibility.
For free-will to be demonstrated there has to be choice.If only one predermined outcome is possible, whether you phrase it in terms of "choice", or not eliminates genuine choice and therefore free-will. How can we ever know what they "would have made anyway"?What you seem to be saying, for example, is that in "choosing" to inhabit Earth rather than Mars I am demonstrating my freewill.Now all things being equal I may well choose to live on Earth rather than Mars but given the current impossibility of me living on Mars to say that I have "chosen" to live on Earth rather than Mars is stretching the definition of the term "choice" to breaking point. Prediction and immutable prohecy are not the same.
If I tell you as an immutable truth that you will eat chocolate ice-cream at midday tomorrow then I have removed the possibility that anything else can even possibly happen.No alternatives = no choice
No choice = no free-willHow can there be free-will in the absence of choice? How do we know what person A wants anyway? If they have been told as an immutable choice what they will want at that specific time how could they possibly want anything else? No alternative exists.The point is that whether you phrase it in terms of wants or actions ALL possible alternatives have been removed.No alternatives = no choice
No choice = no free-willHow can there be free-will in the absence of choice? It is not a question of "force". It is a question of removing all possible alternatives. There is nothing else to do or want other than that prophecised. All other possible future outcomes have been eliminated. In the face of an immutable truth there is no "just happen". All other possibilities have been eliminated. Because this just takes the problem one step further back.
Now rather than just being unable to exert free-will regarding your actions you are now unable to exhibit free-will regarding your wants and desires.Thus making any notions of free-will illusory. Because there are no alternatives.
No alternatives = no choice
No choice = no free-will.How can there be free-will in the absence of choice? It cannot be "just coincide" because all other possibilities and alternatives have been eliminated.Lets try a specific exampe and see where it is we actually differ in practise.IMMUTABLE PROPHECY:
At noon tomorrow EvC member Stile will decide that he wants to don a pink tutu and perform an acapello version of Blue Suede Shoes in the middle of the street outside his house. He undertakes this action. (Let's assume that you have a pink tutu to hand)This is an immutable truth. It will happen. There is no possibility of this not occurring.Now can you explain to me the possibilities, various alterntives, choices and decisions that you think you can make at noon tomorrow such that your free-will (rather than just the illusion of free-will) can be demonstrated?I don't think it can be done in the absence of any possible alternative futures existing.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

So whilst on Earth Jesus remained eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, infallible etc. etc. etc. etc.In short you are saying that he was "man" only in the most trivial and superficial of senses. Namely physically.So are you saying that at one month old the baby Jesus was all knowing omniscience personified? Including knowing of his intended fate?If not at what point in his life as a human did he become aware of this fate?

But the immutable truth that has been revealed to you and/or others IS all the interference required from an external entity to eliminate free-will.All your points stand if we are considering an eternal God siting there passivley observing all-time and therefore knowing what people choose of their own free-will as time progresses from their point of view.However as soon as this eternal being starts telling the non-eternal beings (i.e. us) supposedly making decisions in realtime what they will and will not decide to do in the future the nature of the game changes.If I already know what decision I will make before I have to make it then there has already been interference. All alternatives have been eliminated and with them all choice and free-will regarding that action (or even the wants and desires that lead to that action).Do you see the difference?

Everyone who would listen knew that Jesus would be killed centuries before Jesus was even born. Right?This was immutably and infallibly true. Right?So at what point did Jesus the man freely decide to take this path?
How could he have possibly made any other decision given the immutable prophecy already in place long before the decision actually had to be made?What alternatives were available to him at the point of making that decision?Do you see the problem here?

ICANT you are failing to see the problem.I am not even disputing that an eternal God with an eternal perspective can know such things. That is not the issue.The problem arises when the prophecy is revealed to the non-eternal agents of free-will (i.e. us)If you know what you will decide to do as an immutable truth before you have even encountered the decision in question then you also know that you will be unable to make any alternative decisions at that time.If there is no alternative there is no choice.
If there is no choice there is no freewill.The problem regarding freewill and prophecy is not related to what God knows. It is solely related to what those making decisions in real-time as we perceive it know about the limitations of their own future choices.At what point in Jesus's life as a man could he have exerted his free-will and avoided crucifixion?

​

How could this even be possible without allowing for the prophecy to be false?Do you see the problem now?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Barely man at all in all the most important respects then......? So whilst incontinent, unable to walk and unable to talk (presumably just like every other human infant?) the baby Jesus apparently posessed omniscience and an eternal frame of reference regarding timeless knowledge...........??Are you serious?
Does the bible actually support this view? Or are you making it up? So he was born in a human body fully cognisant of his fate and posessing all other knowledge derived from his eternal omniscience?Thus his mind was no more developed at birth than as a fully grown adult. Is that what you are saying???That must have been one annoyingly precocious kid! I would not have wanted to be his teacher. Well if you are willing to consider a 2 year old Jesus who is as mentally mature as a 30 year old Jesus by virtue of being eternal and omniscient at all times then I suppose you can get around the issue of him having to make a conscious decision at any point in his human life.But that is hardly "walking the Earth as one of us" in any meaningful sense and, as far as I am aware, is totally unsupported by any scriptural source.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The source of the immutable truth and the method of attainment are not relevant to the problem at hand.All we need to know is that the prophecy in question is immutable. OK. Be pedantic. Do you at least agree that man lacks the omniscient eternal perspective such that he can know his own future in the absence of God given prophecy? Humans. Man. Mortals capable of choices and decisions in realtime. Time as we experience it. Not true. Apparently there are some biblical prophecies yet to take place.Surely these are immutable? Surely you, nor amyone else, can change anything such that these do not occur.Can man exert his freewill so as to avoid these prophecies coming true? If not then obviously the freewill of man is compromised by these prophecies.EXAMPLE
Buz tells me that a biblical prophecy is the formation and existence of a worldwide government at the time of Armeggadon. Could the leaders of the world get together to ensure that this does not happen? Disband the UN, and generally use their free-will to avoid that particular prophecy coming true. Could freewill overcome prophecy? Is it possible?If not then the freewill of man is obviously compromised.If you don't like this example then pick any biblical prophecy that you personally believe is yet to have occurred and we can see what restrictions that necessarily imposes on human free-will.

I am not saying it is not a problem. But it certainly is a different problem. Well once those beings who operate in real-time without an eternal perspective (i.e. us) are immutably informed of their choices before ever confronting that choice all possible future alternatives are effectively eliminated.The immutable knowledge of what will immutably happen interferes with the ability to actually choose in time as we perceive it and thus negates our ability to demonstrate free-will at that point.It could be argued that an eternal being passively watching all-time without interfering in any way does not cause this same effect. I am not entirely convinced but it is certainly less clear cut.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

In the case of propehcy there is no such thing as non-interference.If the prophecy is known to anyone then all the interference required has already been been applied. You can do nothing other than have chocolate ice cream. There may as well be no other flavours available.If there are no alternatives how can there be any choice?If there is no choice how can free-will exist?Can free-will exist in the absence of choice? That is the question that you need to answer.

So you are saying that our eternal omnipotent being knows what a given individual would have done in the same situation IF the prophecy was not in effect. So interfering in the realtime decision making capabilities of the individual in question by making the prophecy and thus negating all other possibilities makes no difference?Is that right?You do not actually disagree that prophecy eliminates all alternatives, all other possibilities? You do not disagree that choice has actually been eliminated in the strict and absolute sense?Is that right?You instead claim that in some alternate reality where the agent of free-will never actually existed it is known what they would have done in a given situation?Is that your version of free-will? How can an agent of free-will demonstate their free-will regarding a choice that they never actually encounter or a question that they are never asked?Your versuion of free-will suggests that we are pre-programmed with a response for any given situation and that whether we ever encounter that situation of not our response can be known and prophecised by an eternal being of some kind.That is about as un-free as it is possible to be surely?

Well I now understand your position. I am now convinced that your position is even more flawed. Free-will can exist regarding situations never encountered and questions never considered?How? At what point do these "true desires" manifest themselves?
Who or what determines what these "true desires" are?This is where your whole argument falls down flat.For your "true desires" or "what they would have done anyway" version of free-will to work there has to be a single desire, want or action for any given specific situation. This is the very antithesis of free-will.Let's consider your ice cream example:EXAMPLE
Stile: What flavour ice cream do you want?
Friend: Erm, I'll have chocolate please
Stile: (laughs) You ALWAYS have chocolate......blurrrrppprrrrbbbrrreeeee (sound of time running backwards)Stile: What flavour ice cream do you want?
Friend: Oh, I'll have chocolate please
Stile: (frowns) Tut. You ALWAYS have chocolate......blurrrrppprrrrbbbrrreeeee (sound of time running backwards)Stile: What flavour ice cream do you want?
Friend: Erm, I'll have vanil...no. Oh I'll have chocolate please.
Stile: (laughs) You ALWAYS have chocolate......blurrrrppprrrrbbbrrreeeee (sound of time running backwards)Repeat the above as many times as you deem appropriate........Stile: What flavour ice cream do you want?
Friend: Erm, oh get me strawberry for a change.
Stile: (laughs) What?!?! But you ALWAYS have chocolate!! You feeling OK?
Friend: Just fancied a change that's all.THE POINT
The point of this example is that genuine free-will requires that free-will be exerted at the point of the decision being made. At the point of the decision being made all possibilities exist. There is no single and immutable answer that will be given every single time. There is free-will at the point of making the decision.The "true desire" or "what they would have done anyway" is a variable not a certainty. A variable that cannot be known until the agent of free-will actually exerts their free-will and makes a decision.No matter how deeply and highly probable one particular answer may be, if we can repeat the decision making process (by reversing time for example) there is absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that the same decision will be made each and every time. Such is the nature of genuine free-will.Your "true desires" or "what they would have done anyway" version of "free-will" denies these possibilities, removes any decision making capacity and limits any given scenario to a single want, desire or action. In short free-will to decide what your "true desires" actually are is removed.Essentially a pre-programmed response.PRE-PROGRAMMED RESPONSE
Please understand I do not mean that the omnipotent being "interfered" and pre-programmed - I simply mean that in your version of free-will a particular exact situation will immutably result in a single and exact specific response thus allowing it to be immutably known by our omnipotent being.A form of completely deterministic cause and effect. No free-will involved.Your version of free-will simply regresses the problem of immutable prophecy to one of immutable knowledge of what an individual would do in any given situation. Even if they never actually confront that situation. If anything this is an even more complete denial of free-will!!! Yes it does.
How can it be known, as an immutable fact no less, what we would do in a given situation that we will never actually face, or even consider, unless there is but a single response to that situation?How does your version of free-will cope with the fact that in the case of genuine free-will we might make a different choice each time we are confronted with the same specific situation? How does it cope with the fact that our "true desire" is itself an act of free-will unknown until the moment of decision. At what point in your version of free-will do we freely decide what we want?Please answer that question - Your whole argument rests on the notion of "true desires" or "what we want anyway" so it is imperitive that you explain how this can be immutably known with regard to every situation and every decision that might occur but is never actually faced. How? Because according to your version of free-will a specific situation can have but one response. Hence the term "pre-programmed". I did not literally mean the omnipotent being has to login to your brain......I just meant that (specific situation) = (specific response). Completely deterministic in terms of cause and effect.
The very antithesis of free-will. Your imperfect speculations regarding other people's future decisions are not comparable to an omnipotent being immutably knowing what a supposedly free-will-enabled agent will do in every conceivable situation.CONCLUSION
To immutably know what the response to a hypothetical future situation would be denies the possibility of decisions being made as situations are encounterd. It denies the possibility of more than one response to a given specific situation. It denies the freedom to decide what one wants and what ones "true desires" actually are in any given real-time scenario.In short your version of "free-will" denies any possibility of free-will as described by any meaningful definition of the term at all.Enjoy.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.