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