Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ssc-vax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david From: david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: More Omni vs Free Will Message-ID: <847@ssc-vax.UUCP> Date: Tue, 21-Feb-84 17:07:14 EST Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.847 Posted: Tue Feb 21 17:07:14 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 22-Feb-84 07:07:33 EST Organization: Boeing Aerospace, Seattle Lines: 90 In reply to Jon White: > This article is another attempt to get David Norris to understand the > contradiction between omniscience and free will (as I see it, anyway.) I might interject and point out that, if this were the case, netmail might be more appropriate. If, however, you would like to carry on a public discussion, along with Darrell Plank and Byron Howes, that's ok with me. I think everyone can benefit from this particular discussion. (and its fun!) >> ... Are you saying that none of us have free will, or that God (as >> Christians think of Him) doesn't exist because we have free will? Jon replied: > Take your pick. I'm just trying to explain the contradiction in the clearest > and simplest terms I know how. As a religious skeptic (not Atheist), I would > choose the latter, but you are free to make your own choice. :-) I had to think about this one for a bit; at first I thought you were being wishy-washy. But perhaps a better word is devil's advocate? I hope that you apply this same thinking to atheists. But for arguments sake, I will assume that you are trying to assert that God doesn't exist because we have free will. >If I misunderstood you, then perhaps you would be kind enough to point out just > exactly what I misunderstood. Are you saying that my attempt to understand > the limitations of the Christian God is NOT futile? Tough question, albeit slightly misworded. The assumption that the Christian God has limitations has no proof (or disproof). But aren't you putting God in a no-win position? Now for a trick question. Assume for the sake of argument that God exists. Do you believe that men should be able to fully understand Him? (In order to get anywhere, anticipate my possible response to your answer). > Also, David, you failed to respond to my point (which you conveniently > omitted). In response to your argument that God was beyond our understanding > (somehow implying that your conception of this incomprehensible being is more > accurate than mine!), I mentioned that: "I doubt that you would accept the > same argument from an adherent of Zeus or the Great Ubizmo." This may appear >to be a flippant comment, but it shows how weak your rationalization really is. > Unless you want to go through life accepting every deity whose followers claim > is beyond your understanding, you'd better come up with a better excuse for > your God. I did not respond to this argument because I agree with it. The same logic will hold true for Zeus or Ubizmo. But the reasons I accept Christ and not Ubizmo are different. This is a separate argument. If, for example, a Ubizmoan (sp?) told me that Ubizmo was beyond our understanding, I might ask why he believes Ubizmo instead of Zeus or Jesus. I would present the Bible as historical evidence for Jesus. If you want to argue about the reliability of the Bible, fine; but realize that that is a DIFFERENT ARGUMENT. So no flames about "blindly accepting the Bible as truth"; let's keep to the subject for a change, ok? Forgive me, but the tone of your discussion appears to be getting a little raw at this point. I am not making "excuses" for God (as if He needed me to defend Him!), nor do I imply that my conception of God is more accurate than yours. I am trying to offer a reasonable solution to the problems of omniscience and free will. Remember, too, that brilliant men through the ages have taken stands on *both* sides of this issue, with no resolution. I submit that this is sufficient grounds to state that you don't have to give up intellectual integrity to be a Christian. (This, too, is a trick argument, one that I hope you will not refute). > By the way, I have no training in philosophy or rigorous logic. I would be > very interested in seeing someone poke holes in my reasoning and resolve this > contradiction. If Christians allow this contradiction to stand, it is a > devastating blow to their theology. After all, what is the point of even > trying to live according to God's law if our fates are already decided? If > God knows in precise detail every action that we are ever going to take, is >there anything that we can do to change the future actions that God thinks that > we will take? If we could somehow surprise God and change those future > actions, His omniscience would be invalidated. In all honesty, I think that we are both in the same boat in that we each have our arguments, pro and con, and simply don't want to be persuaded. Perhaps others may benefit from the discussion. I was going to mention something about the presumption that God is not omnipotent (i.e., God is all-powerful so He can do anything). This would be getting into even more hot-water, since I don't think it is possible for God to do things which are inherently self-contradictory. The flaw in your logic, Jon, as I see it, is that you falsely assume that *knowledge* is the same as *control*. To *know* something is not to *do* it. -- David Norris :-) -- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david