So you are saying that an atemporal God cannot communicate? — bahman

Well, cannot be communicated to, at least.
(Which incidentally would make prayer futile.)

More pertinently, cannot be a mind.
Minds are not inert, inactive, quite the opposite.

That is not correct. We always do what God knows and there is no conflict between God's knowledge and free will unless we are informed and wish to do opposite. — bahman

The typical idea towards this, is a block universe "viewed from the outside" if you will.
As per above, I don't think this can be coherent if it includes "outside of time" observed by a mind.
Might not have to be atemporal, though, at least not necessarily, though the block universe usually includes all of time.

Time and such (older parallel thread)

Suppose x is defined as atemporal, “outside of time”. Well, then there can be no time at which x exists. And there can be no duration involved, x cannot change, or be subject to causation, cannot interact, and would be rather inert. — jorndoe

What if the being can be both temporal and atemporal? Can there be such a thing? The temporal side of the being would be allowed to communicate with what the atemporal side knows and thus the knowledge is shared being both sides. This would give the atemporal (Jesus, for example) the same exact knowledge as a God that is not subject to time.

The typical idea towards this, is a block universe "viewed from the outside" if you will.
As per above, I don't think this can be coherent if it includes "outside of time" observed by a mind.
Might not have to be atemporal, though, at least not necessarily, though the block universe usually includes all of time. — jorndoe

Yes.

What if the being can be both temporal and atemporal? Can there be such a thing? The temporal side of the being would be allowed to communicate with what the atemporal side knows and thus the knowledge is shared being both sides. This would give the atemporal (Jesus, for example) the same exact knowledge as a God that is not subject to time. — Abdul

Please read this post.

That’s the post I was referring to

That’s the post I was referring to. — Abdul

Atemporal thing cannot communicate.

Foreknowledge simply is the divine knowledge of our decisions/acts. One can ask God about this knowledge and decide opposite which is paradoxical. — bahman

True foreknowledge would encompass all our decisions and ''decide the opposite'' would then be meaningless.

True foreknowledge would encompass all our decisions and ''decide the opposite'' would then be meaningless. — TheMadFool

Therefore you don't have free will.

Therefore you don't have free will. — bahman

Free will. As I understand it it means we're in control of our thoughts and actions. And that there are no influences in our lives that we can't say no to.

Notice that free will requires negation. Affirmation isn't an indicator of free will. If one accepts/affirms an influence then we can't differentiate free will from no free will. However, if one can negate an influence then it serves as evidence that we have free will.

Let's use that then. Each person has likes and dislikes. Of course these are, apparently, not something we have a choice on. Does that mean we have no free will? If no, let's continue. If yes, then we need to dial down the notion of free will to something that matters only after our likes and dislikes are formed.

We, all of us, have experienced situations where we've done things we actually dislike - negation. Therefore I think we do have free will.

As for foreknowledge and free will, only realize that the former doesn't require determinism and while the absence of the latter is generally based on determinism.

What if God could simply make 100% correct guesses. There is no determinism i.e. no laws by which we can unravel the thoughts and decisions of people. God simply makes correct guesses. That makes us free doesn't it?

I agree with what you stated. The question however is whether we can do opposite of what God reveals?

The question however is whether we can do opposite of what God reveals? — bahman

Free will is the difference between won't and can't. You won't do the opposite but it doesn't mean you can't do the opposite.

and decide opposite — bahman

are you assuming ample of autonomy or free will?
why would you choose to go right or left in your daily routes? what would happen if you now reverse all?
That's so you can think about the consequences of absolute free will.

Well, cannot be communicated to, at least.
(Which incidentally would make prayer futile.)

More pertinently, cannot be a mind.
Minds are not inert, inactive, quite the opposite. — jorndoe

If there is no time for god, then he cannot exist in time, and therefore does not exist.

Free will is the difference between won't and can't. — TheMadFool

Are you trying to define free will?

You won't do the opposite but it doesn't mean you can't do the opposite. — TheMadFool

I perhaps would not but I can.

are you assuming ample of autonomy or free will? — Dzung

I am talking about free will.

why would you choose to go right or left in your daily routes? what would happen if you now reverse all?
That's so you can think about the consequences of absolute free will. — Dzung

I most of the time choose between right and left whether they have advantage for me. I can also do things which brings disadvantage to me.

a professional article for it
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/#BeyoFata