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