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: More omni/freewill (and now, nova!)
Message-ID: <6812@unc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 23-Feb-84 10:21:14 EST
Article-I.D.: unc.6812
Posted: Thu Feb 23 10:21:14 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 24-Feb-84 01:44:02 EST
References: <849@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Organization: University of North Carolina Comp. Center
Lines: 25

David Norris asks why omniscience makes free will irrelevant.  I think
that is a fair question.  First, however, let me clear up a misconcep-
tion that somehow has crept into this discussion.  To say that free
will is irrelevant is not to say that it doesn't exist, but merely to
say that it has no meaningful consequences.  The concept of free-will
is not destroyed, but becomes superfluous when viewed at the global
(omniscient) level.

As I have read this (and other) discussions, the reason that G*d gave
man free will was so that man could choose to obey and love G-d or
not.  G-d, being omniscient, already knows the outcome of that choice --
that is to say that G-d knows already whether any given human will
choose to love him or not.  This does not deny the existance of a
process of choice, or that it is somehow important at the local (human)
level.   As the outcome is known to G-d, however, irrespective of
the choice process, the choice process becomes superfluous to the
ultimate disposition of the soul.  This last, of course, is also
already known.
-- 

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

					   Byron Howes
					UNC - Chapel Hill
				  ({decvax,akgua}!mcnc!unc!bch)