Every choice has a reason, does it not? Every non-insane choice is done with purpose and motivation, is it not?
Yes, and the reason for the free moral choice is a free moral chooser. You can no better explain the 'reason' for man's free moral choices as you can explain the 'reason' for God's choices. We simply appeal to mystery and credit the choice to the chooser, period. Anything else is speculative at best, and heretical at worse.
If the answers to the above questions are "Yes," then how can the agent truly have done "otherwise" in the contra-causal sense?
It sounds like you are asking me how one determines a free choice, which presumes a deterministic answer is necessary. (otherwise known as 'question begging')
You would have to argue that the very same purpose and motivation for doing A would also be for doing B, or even not A. The is logical absurdity.
What is logically absurd is attempting to call something free that has been predetermined not to be otherwise than what it is. (as compatibilistic believers do). We simply appeal to mystery prior to creating such logical and moral quandrums.
For the same rationale that both you and I would argue that atheistic materialism begs the question concerning the origin of the universe, I would argue concerning the will and consequent actions of finite creatures who are not God, and thereby do not create ex nihilo.
This assumes God could not and did not create us with a lessor but similar form of creative (ex nihilo) abilities, which separates us from the animals as being 'image bearers' of God.
If God created other "gods" who contribute to the creation ex nihilo, then it is illogical to assume that God can know what free creatures will do.
Its only 'illogical' from a finite human vantage point. Scripture never appeals to logic in order for us to accept what is taught (i.e. trinity). Plus, on this matter we are speculating. Scripture doesn't provide clear cut answers so we are merely philosophizing in regard to all the mechanics of how God created morally free creatures. My argument is just that your speculations appear to put men more on the level of animals, not free, morally accountable image bearers who God loves and seeks to save.
The Open Theists would be correct. If people have libertarian free will that is autonomous from God (and any secondary causation), then trying to argue that God can still know what they will choose is contradictory.
Why? Must one's view of God be so limiting that He can't foresee the free and independent acts of other 'ex nihilo' creatures? I'm not sure why you would assume He couldn't have that ability?
If you believe that God does have exhaustive knowledge of all events in time, and you believe (as would be necessary) that this knowledge of God is part of His eternal being, then you would have to believe in "reverse determinism" such that part of God's essential being is determined by the creation that He otherwise willfully chose to actuate. He would then be "bound" to create the universe, and in such a way that autonomous creatures from His hand dictate the way He has to create. The compatibilist view allows for the creation to be the way God actually wanted to do it without Him being "stuck" and subject to other autonomous beings. The trap that libertarian free will places upon God and creation is the reason that Process Theologians reject the very notion that God truly created the universe, because contra-causal agents (every molecule representing a rapid state of existence) contribute to the form of reality.
I follow what you are saying. Ultimately you are arguing that if God knows it all before creating it all, then He must have determined it all to be as He created to be. I used to believe the same thing but there are several problems with this view. (1) Scripture never teaches it and (2) it puts God onto a linear timeline bound by cause/effect relationships. If we are going to speculate as to what God could or couldn't do based upon what he knows and when he knows it, then I'd prefer the 'eternal now' view of divine omniscience.
We, as finite humans, have three ways of knowing something.
1. Past knowledge (fixed knowledge which can't be changed),
2. Present knowledge (which we interact with and change as we wish to the level of our ability and desire)
3. Future knowledge (told to us by prophecy, or if someone had a 'crystal ball' we could foresee is going to happen)
Your logic seems to put God in this same framework whereby His omniscience is like our "Past knowledge." It is fixed, done, complete and will not be changed, and any 'interaction' with it seems contrived at best. I don't believe like this anymore. This seems to be a very limiting and small view of God to me now.
If I had to speculate I'd say that God's omniscience more relates to our 'present knowledge,' than our past knowledge. He, as the eternal I AM, knows everything because he is at all places at all times at the same time. He is not limited by a timeline of before and after; cause and effect. So, one can affirm God's omniscience without limiting it to a finite framework by which his knowledge of 'future' happenings are somehow directly linked to his past determinations. He is much bigger than that IMO.
