Free Will and Biblical Prophecy: Are They Mutually Exclusive?

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.

Hi, Straggler. Just to clarify: you have no problem with God knowing our future, but only with Him telling us about it?It seems like the distinction is lacking a mechanism. If a future can be known, why can't it be told?

---

I'm Bluejay.Darwin loves you.

Hi, Stile. What this seems to boil down to is, “IF the person doesn’t change their mind, or get hit by a truck on the way, or receive a death threat, or something, then an immutable prophecy can be made about it.”To me, “if” statements compromise the immutability of the prophecy.----- Well, of course not. Nobody can say what God can or can't do.Discussions like this are only about the implications of certain assumptions. When I say, "God couldn't do X," it is primarily based on the logic that God's attributes are not the limiting factor in the realization of X, and not that I am stipulating that a God who can do X does not exist.Here's an example:Cartoon writers like to invent heros with “super strength” who can punch holes in mountains and stuff. Now, given that the superhero has “super strength,” its perfectly possible for him to generate enough force to punch through a mountain.But, if the punch is powerful enough to break a mountain, it’s also powerful enough to break the hero’s skin and bones. And no amount of “super strength” is going to compensate for the limitations of the human skeleton: at some point, the structural integrity of the body most also be upgraded, or the “super strength” is useless. Yet, superheroes never hurt their fists while punching through mountains, and can always get up without a broken bone after a building falls on them.Just like “super strength” doesn’t automatically grant injury-immunity, so “super intelligence” doesn’t automatically grant knowledge of the future. Of course, most people don’t call God “super intelligent,” but “all-knowing,” which kind of renders my argument moot.I think we’re in agreement, though, that “all-knowing” is not----- You’re right, of course: I think your definition is superior to the simplified statement that I used in previous discussions about free will.Still, I think we both agree that free will and determinism aren’t entirely mutually exclusive. Some things (like toothbrushes) behave in a deterministic fashion; and some situations can confine the choices of things that do have free will.But, I argue that, since the option of “kicking against the pricks” is always technically allowed, free will can never truly be restricted (assuming it exists, in the first place, of course). Someone could kidnap my wife and baby, and “force” me to do whatever they wanted. I would still technically be capable of choosing not to play along, so they couldn’t really be 100% sure that I would do what they told me to. But, I think everybody “knows” that I’m not going to risk my family’s lives to prove that I have free will.----- You haven't done anything wrong with that: my argument should be scrutinized and critiqued as much as yours. Besides, my focus throughout this thread has mostly been on "you're wrong," anyway, so it would be hypocritical of me to complain. ----- It wasn't my intention to screw with your definition: I was only proposing what I thought were useful additions. It was only me trying to clarify your argument to improve the clarity of my own arguments.

---

I'm Bluejay.Darwin loves you.

Hi Straggler, John 10:10 Jesus said: Unless He limited Himself. But we are not told that He did. Do you think God took on flesh and came to walk on earth as one of us?He came to die for the sins of the world. As Jesus contemplated His soon death on the cross He said, "for this cause came I unto this hour".So Jesus said HIs purpose for comming was to 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, Sure he could.But that is the wrong question to ask.The proper question to ask is, "will man change the prophecy?In another thread I have been debating with Rrhain about a prophecy concerning King Ahab.In I Kings chapter 22 King Ahab ask Jehoshaphat the king of Judah to go to war with him against Syria.Jehoshaphat ask him to inquire of the prophets. Ahab called for the prophets about 400 of them and they said go up.Jehoshaphat wanted a second opinion, so he asked is there any other prophet. Ahab said yes Micaiah but he hates me and will prophecy against me.Jehoshaphat requested Micaiah be sent for.The messenger who went for Micaiah told him all the other prophets had said go up and suggested he do the same.When asked by Ahab Micaiah said go up.Ahab asked Micaiah how many time he would have to ask him before he told him the truth of what God said.This was Micaiah's prophecy. He told Ahab he would die and the people would be scattered upon the hills and go home.Ahab went into a rant telling Jehoshaphat see I told you he would prophecy against me then he said a lot of other things.So they went up to battle but Ahab disguised himself not using his Kingly Apparel.Could Ahab have changed the prophecy? Yes.Did he change the prophecy? No.He went up to battle and died in battle and the people were scattered and went home.So to get the correct answers you have to ask the correct questions.God knows the decision man is going to make before the prophecy is made.Any excuse or reason you can come up with for man changing the prophecy will not affect God's prophecy as He knows the decisions that was made at the moment of decision.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."

No. If God exists and is omniscient, he would not have chosen a creation path that would lead to this requirement.Cheers,
--Caldron68

Really? Did God have a choice in the matter or not?Cheers,
--Caldron68

This is only true if we accept your definition that Free Will is "the ability to choose between alternate futures".I do not accept your definition.My definition is:Free Will: The ability to get what you want from the situation presented when there is absolutely no control on your decision from any external being.How is that not Free Will? How come you are unable to say what part of my definition is not Free Will? I didn't say it would be easy, or that we could even tell. I said it was possible, that's all. Especially possible for an omnipotent being. No, I'm not saying that at all. And if you think I am saying this then I am not explaining myself correctly. You living on earth would simply be "the situation presented to you". There is no restriction on your choice via some external agency... but there is a restriction on your choice via "the situation presented to you". So, it's not that you're exercising your Free Will to live on Earth, it's that the situation presented to you doesn't allow for any other options. Free Will doesn't enter into the equation at all. I totally agree. Which is why I didn't say anything of the sort. Again, I agree with you that there is no Free Will here if we use your definition of Free Will.I do not agree that your definition of Free Will is acceptable.There is Free Will here if we use my definition. As long as the alternative the decision-maker is left with is exactly the same one they would have chosen without the presence of the immutable prophecy.Again:Free Will: The ability to get what you want from the situation presented when there is absolutely no control on your decision from any external being.How is that not Free Will? How come you are unable to say what part of my definition is not Free Will? This is only true... if we use your definition of Free Will.Again:Free Will: The ability to get what you want from the situation presented when there is absolutely no control on your decision from any external being.How is that not Free Will? How come you are unable to say what part of my definition is not Free Will?Your definition of Free Will is not universally accepted. That's exactly what I'm contending. Change your definition slightly... and this is all possible. What, exactly, about my definition is not Free Will... other then (of course) the fact that it is not your definition? I would agree that if anyone was unable to exert Free Will regarding their wants and desires then Free Will is removed. This is not what I'm saying. In fact, I am explicitly stating that this must be present in my definition.Again:Free Will: The ability to get what you want from the situation presented when there is absolutely no control on your decision from any external being.How is that not Free Will? How come you are unable to say what part of my definition is not Free Will?How are you possibly confusing "getting what you want with absolutly no control from anyone else" to mean "restrictions on your wants and desires"? They are exact, plain english, opposites. There can be Free Will in the absence of choice if we discard your definition of Free Will. And use the one I'm presenting.You are unable to show what it is about my definition that is not Free Will.In order to show that what I'm saying is wrong, you need to show how my definition of Free Will is not adequate. You are simply repeating your own definition of Free Will and saying that my definition is not the same. Well of course it isn't... that's exactly what I'm doing... changing the definition of Free Will to something more useful. Then you're telling me that the scenarios I'm presenting are merely not aligning with YOUR definition of Free Will. Of course their not... that's exactly what I'm doing... showing the flaws in your definition of Free Will. If, given no prophecy at all, at the time of the decision... noon tomorrow... I did not want to do exactly what the prophecy said for any reason... maybe as simple as I wanted a green tutu. Maybe as large as I want to go to Africa... maybe the idea had never entered my head... anything differing at all... Then Free Will would have been removed and I agree with you.However, what I'm saying is that IF, AND ONLY IF, without the presence of the prophecy.. if no one had ever heard of such a thing and it didn't exist... and I still actually "donned a pink tutu and performed an acapello version of Blue Suede Shoes in the middle of the street outside my house at noon" because that is what I really wanted with the situation presented to me anyway...Then Free Will is still there, even if the prophecy is there.Any slight variation... even a teeny tiny one... takes Free Will away. But, if the immutable prophecy exactly matches the true desires of the decision maker given the prophecy didn't exist... then Free Will remains simply because it's exactly what that person wanted anyway.Remember that I'm not trying to say that ALL immutable prophecies automatically keep Free Will around. I'm quite explicitly stating that there is only one single special case that I can think of. Of course if we don't follow that special case then I think Free Will is removed.What you haven't done is show that when we follow this special case, then Free Will (by my definition) is removed. You also have not shown a flaw in my definition of Free Will (other then to say it doesn't match your definition, which is really rather obvious).If you want to say that I am wrong, you have to take what I'm saying and show that it is wrong. You are still unable to do that.

I admit that this is all that is required to possibly cause interference from an external entity to eliminate Free Will. And if it does cause interference in any way... then I agree that Free Will is removed.What I'm talking about is the special case where it doesn't cause any interference.Example:I like choclate ice-cream and I always choose chocolate ice-cream over vanilla.An omnipotent being produces an immutable prophecy on my that after dinner I will choose chocolate ice-cream over vanilla. I shrug my shoulders and say "yeah... duh...". Then, dinner comes and I'm presented with vanilla and chocolate ice-cream. I get chocolate.It is this one simple situation that I say Free Will is still present along with an immutable prophecy.

Hi caldron68, You must be speaking for 'God caldron68' because you are not speaking for the God that I was referring too.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."

I'm pretty sure I only claimed that it was "possible" for a few people to have the capability to go against prophecy.. and if they did, then their Free Will will be removed.However, if the prophecy can be made in such a way that this situation does not exist then Free Will is not removed. I do not know of a way this can be done since some people like to be very contrary to what they hear. However, I do not place this seemingly impossible task above an omnipotent being.Perhaps it is impossible. I think you'll have a hard time showing that an omnipotent being is unable to do something though. Not quite.
I suggest that "if anyone" does it, then Free Will is removed.
I am suggesting that the immutable prophecy is made in such a way that no one actually wants to do anything else.
I also suggest that it is possible for an omnipotent being to be able to "get it right" for certain people, in which case Free Will is intact, for everyone, as long as the omnipotent being doesn't make any immutable prophecies about anyone else.
I also suggest that I am unable to see what would prevent an omnipotent being from being able to do this for everyone, even the extremely contrarian. I challenge you to prove that this is beyond an omnipotent being. You can say "this person always wants to do something different from what they have heard"... but, well, I bet they've never heard a prophecy from an omnipotent being before I am most certainly not ignoring such a thing. And I fully admit that if even the mere presence of the prophecy alters the "true free desires" of the subject.. then Free Will is removed. However, do you think such a possibility and forethought is beyond the abilities of an omnipotent being? I would love to see you show me how.I just can't think of what could prevent an omnipotent being from being able to see such a problem and make accounts for it. And I am disappointed that you didn't take the time to think before you posted such a rude and untrue remark.You have yet to show anything that I am ignoring, you simply didn't give me credit for thinking about something I hadn't explicitly typed out yet. My posts are long already... if I typed out every possible thought without hoping readers think a little bit for themselves... they'd be 10 times longer.

Hi caldron68, Sure He didHe could have let us all pay our own sin debt.But that means that no one would have an opportunity to escape everlasting punishment.I for one am glad He made the choice He did.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."

I'm more thinking about it in the reverse terms. It's not so much that "if we have all these 'if's'... then an immutable prophecy can be made that doesn't restrict Free Will". I know this has been how I've been trying to explain it, but that's just because I need to start there to get people to see where I'm trying to go. In the overall sense, I think of the scenario more as: "with any given situation, an immutable prophecy that does not restrict Free Will can be made if it is made in such a way that it exactly matches the true desires of the decision makers anyway." ...and we use my definition of Free Will, of course. I'm pretty sure that closer to the beginning of this thread I specifically described an all-knowing, all-powerful, a-temporal type of omnipotent God. Sorry if that got lost in all the recent posts though. I do think I've since shortened my description to merely "omnipotent." But that's only for the sake of my fingers typing away... not because I'm dropping any of those abilities.Actually, I'm not even positive that such abilities are required. I mean, as long as some being is capable of predicting the true desires of the decision-making subject, perhaps none of those abilities are specifically required. I guess I just think it would be "easiest" for an omnipotent being. Then again, I suppose you'd have to be pretty close to omnipotent to create an "immutable" prophecy. And I thank you for that. I think you've been most helpful in helping me describe the special case I'm thinking of.However... I did not find any more objections in this last message of yours. Are simply tired of this debate and ready to take whatever thoughts you now have to self-contemplation? (regardless of whether or not I actually changed your mind) Or are there no more objections because you now agree with me?

Hi, Stile. I think we've reached a point where we understand each other, but still disagree about the conclusions. I still think that what you're describing is more akin to a "lucky guess" than an "immutable prophecy," for instance.I figured that continuing to push my side would only risk a slug-fest like that one I had with AOkid. Some people definitely deserve that sort of treatment, and some people I really just want to smack down if even they don't deserve it , but I don't see you as either of those, so I can let you disagree with me peacefully.-----I may have discovered a situation in which I agree with you, though: maybe it's possible for somebody's free will to be severely restricted by the decisions they made in the past. If someone has gone down a single path far enough, their future becomes, for all practical intents and purposes, inevitable, and thus, predictable. This could certainly be consistent with a vague, general prophecy, such as, "you will cause your own destruction," or "you will have many children," or something like that.I still think you'd have to factor in all sorts of possible minor variables, even if just as a technicality, but, if the prophecy is vague enough and based on general trends, rather than specific events, it could work. Of course, the vagueness would have to increase in proportion to the amount of time and number of free agents involved, but those would just be logistics for a large enough intelligence to work through.

---

I'm Bluejay.Darwin loves you.

Fair enough. I basically agree with you. That's one of the things that started me down this idea, actually. At first I thought it could only be done with "a lucky guess." What moved me further on is thinking that an omnipotent being shouldn't have a problem matching whatever is required for this "lucky guess." But I still have reservations about that myself, although no one has yet been able to strictly show me any. It just feels weird. But I suppose "weird feelings" come with the territory when talking about "omnipotence" as if it could actually exist and make sense to us non-omnipotent folk. Which, again, is exactly what I initially thought. The only thing that moved me forward is being unable to think of a sufficient complexity that would be beyond an omnipotent being, even if we moved from general trends down to specific events. That is, if the only problem is being able to think about and account for an infinite number of variables... is that still impossible for an omnipotent being? I'm currently assuming the answer to this question is "no," but we'll see. Or maybe we won't... since I doubt any omnipotent being is going to come and let me test it's intelligence The question is similar to that of "can an unstoppable force overpower an immovable object?" Which strict definition is "more powerful?" It is even useful to discuss such a thing?And perhaps it is equally useless to ask "if there is an infinite number of complexities to consider and account for, is this too much for an omnipotent being?". Perhaps not, I don't really know. I don't really have any reason for my current assumption of "no." However, this particular conundrum only arises when we're taking into account any and all situations. I originally was simply looking for one situation, perhaps required to be very small and sufficiently uncomplicated. I was only looking to show that the absolute statement "immutable prophecy and Free Will cannot co-exist" was false. And that only takes one simple, possible scenario.Most likely what I'm thinking of only exists within the realm of imagination that is not strictly logically or rationally impossible.Of course, if so, it then still exists See you next time.