Gods foreknowledge preceds ur actions - true/false?

This is one of the most common logics theists put forward in reply to “why am I responsible for my actions because god already determinded my actions and knows what I m gonna do, and I cant do something else”. Theist will say, "this is actually the other way around, meaning u dont do it bcoz he knows it, rather he knows beforehand that u will do it, so actually your actions dont depend on his knowledge or plan!!

How do you respond to that?

My understanding is, doesnt matter if I depend on his plan/prediction/foreknoweldge, he knows it all IN THE END and I CAN NOT go/do beyond his foreknowledge, so there is no justification of existence of freewill, when this is already “pre-determined”

1 Like

Welcome @drkfuture:rainbow:

Except for the flood. He needs a sticky note as a reminder :woman_shrugging:t2:

1 Like

If a being exists that knows exactly what I will do, before I do it, then any notion of autonomy or free will would be an illusion.

If nothing happens except by the will of a deity, then again any perception I have of autonomy or free will, would necessarily be illusory.

I have encountered various arguments from religious apologists to defend the notion such a deity is possible in conjunction with “free will”, none of them are rational.


“For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.” This verse comes from Jeremiah 29:11,

Proverbs 3:5-6

Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths.

Psalm 72:11

All kings will bow down to him and all nations will serve him.


An architect/engineer designs a structure. He has zero assistance/input from anybody else. He plans EVERYTHING down to the very last detail. There are even design flaws that he purposely adds, KNOWING they will cause future problems within the structure. The architect/engineer then proceeds to manufacture every single item that will be required to build the structure, down to tiniest of nails, nuts, and bolts. Again, zero help from anybody else. He then builds the structure EXACTLY according to the plans he made, to include the flaws he designed into it. Again, no help with the construction process. As an added bonus, the structure was built in a location where he can control every single aspect of the environmental conditions, down to the slightest of breezes and every single drop of rain.

Shortly after the construction is complete, the architect/engineer causes a severe storm to hit the structure. The high winds and heavy rain weaken one of the design flaws he purposely built into the main support beam of the structure. The main beam fails, and the structure collapses, EXACTLY the way he knew it would.

Who is responsible for the destruction of the structure?


ha ha thats a cool analogy

1 Like

Dont u think the sheer idea of GOD having “WILL/PURPOSE” is flawed? how can an all-knowing have purpose/will?

I think it is hypothetical, since there is no objective evidence any deity exists outside of the human imagination, and I’ve not heard any rational argument or seen any objective evidence that a deity is even possible.

Of course ideas like omniscience and omnipotence contain innate contradictions, if a being existed and knew everything then it would necessarily know what it will do, and when, so how then can it have choice or autonomy? This of course would negate the notion it could simultaneously be omnipotent, and demonstrates that the notion of such a being with those characteristics is irrational.


Thanks. It ain’t perfect, but it gets the point across. Let’s take it a tiny step further, though…

That same engineer/architect is also a genius programmer. Let’s say he engineers and builds some advanced robots to keep him company. He’s so good that he programs the robots such that he knows EXACTLY what each one will do at any given moment on any given day in any situation. And he purposely programs them to do EXACTLY what he wants them to do according to a Plan he developed. None of the robots can do anything other than what the Programmer planned for them to do. The Programmer even knows EXACTLY when/where/why which robots will malfunction, with those malfunctions causing those robots to do great harm and damage to other robots. Granted, the Programmer could intervene at any given time and prevent the malfunctions. However, to do so would mean having to alter his overall Plan. Besides, he actually programmed those robots to malfunction in the first place.

Who is at fault when innocent robots get damaged by the malfunctioning robots?

1 Like

If god knows what I will do before I even exist; and created me in such a way to ensure I do this: then the notion I had ever had a choice in anything is kind of silly.


Absolutely, and of course if this hypothetical deity knows everything, then ìt also knows what it will do, and when, and so its choices would be as meaningless as as ours would be.

Asked and answered. Being omniscient, our robot builder could have done no different than he did. After all, he already knew he would do it before he did it. To do any action, no matter how small, outside its own awareness of exactly what he was going to do (had to do), would mean he did not know and, was therefore not omniscient and not God. An omniscient robot builder has no choice but to build robots exactly as he builds them. Everything is determined by that which is omniscient for it to be omniscient. Where can one place ‘fault’ in such a system?

1 Like

:musical_note::notes: “I’m only human, after all… I’m only human, after all… Don’t put your blame on me… Don’t put your blame on me…” :notes::musical_note:

I think, therefore I am.

I am, therefore I think.

Therefore, I think I am.

I think… :thinking:

1 Like

I therefore am, I think??

1 Like

I don’t think so…….:sunglasses:

1 Like

What is this ‘I’ thing being referenced? I’m seeing a fallacious tautology in which ‘I’ is defined by ‘I.’

My bad. How 'bout this?..

YOU think, therefore I am.

I am, therefore YOU think.

Therefore, you think I am.

(Or whatever you prefer to think.)

I think.
I’m Atheist.

But am I a monkey dreaming I am a man, or a man dreaming I am a monkey?


thank u for the nice analogy, its so funny and right-to-the-point that I translated it into my language and posted in facebook, people are so amused and enlightened. Thanks.

1 Like

Yes, the answer is yes…yes, both are true…and untrue…