Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site unc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!bch
From: bch@unc.UUCP (Byron Howes )
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Free Will vs. Omnipotence
Message-ID: <6791@unc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 20-Feb-84 16:46:58 EST
Article-I.D.: unc.6791
Posted: Mon Feb 20 16:46:58 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 21-Feb-84 08:01:23 EST
References: <840@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Organization: University of North Carolina Comp. Center
Lines: 48

While I can't pretend to speak for Jon White, I think I understand what
he is trying to say.  It isn't really free will vs. omniscience, but
rather than given omniscience, free will becomes somewhat irrelevent.
Incidentally, this isn't a new problem for christianity.  The Calvinists
hit it dead-on and came up with a rather unique perception of grace
and salvation that is still held by some flavors of Baptists today.

First, let's take the theology out and merely hypothesize a being that
is omniscient with respect to time and space -- that is to say that
its perceptions are such that all things at all times and places are
seen haas happening in the 'here' and 'now.'  (This is a bit confusing,
but such a being would have presumably found a way to adapt to it.)

Given a sufficiently large viewpoint, such a creature might see a
human life as a human being might see a piece of yarn on the floor:
birth a death are events connected by something which is either
straight or tangled but have no other implied relationship (Please!
do not read any symbolism into that analogy, it is only a convenience.)

To this being, the beginning is the beginning and the end is the end.
The endpoints of the yarn are not so much determined as they simply
are in a state of existence.  It really doesn't matter much whether
the yarn knows where it is coming from or where it is going to.  That
is largely immutable.  

The Calvinists, seeing this, allowed that any individuals state of
grace had been determined and was unchangeable.  To question one's
status, however, tantamount to blasphemy -- challenging G-d.  One
worked as hard as one could, however, do *demonstrate* one's status
in this world as material possessions were seen to be a sign of
grace along with success.  Needless to say, Calvinism did not enjoy
extreme popularity among the poor.

In this sense, the notion of predestination exists irrespective of
free will.  It isn't that G-d has set people down and wound them
up like little automatons to make preset choices, but that the outcome
of the choices -- in fact the choices themselves -- are seen as are
the knots and tangles of a string of yarn.  

I hope this helps and I welcome corrections to the Calvinist notion
of grace described above as it has been a while since I studied it.
-- 

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

					Byron Howes
					UNC - Chapel Hill
					(decvax!mcnc!unc!bch)