Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!cbosgd!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Omniscience vs. Free Will (again!)
Message-ID: <1816@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 22-Feb-84 14:44:52 EST
Article-I.D.: cbscc.1816
Posted: Wed Feb 22 14:44:52 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 23-Feb-84 06:18:01 EST
References: <844@ssc-vax.UUCP>, <6806@unc.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus
Lines: 17

> ...  If the Deity is omniscient, then it knows what we
> are going to do today, tomorrow, or for eternity.  It doesn't *matter*
> whether or not we are made to do it.  To an all-knowing diety, the
> outcome and all outcomes are *known.*  The human notion of "free will"
> is irrelevant in the face of that knowledge.

I dissagree.  The simple statement David Norris was trying to make is
that precognition is not the same as predetermination.  God's foreknowlege
does not make him responsible for man's choices, nor does it require Him
to intervene and change the outcome.  After all, the God we are speaking
of has free will also.  The notion of free will (whether from God's
perspective or ours) is not irrelevant in the face of the omniscience of
God.  As long as man has the ability to freely choose right from wrong,
God is in no way responsible for that decision.

Paul Dubuc