Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site azure.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!azure!jonw
From: jonw@azure.UUCP (Jonathan White)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Jon's 5 points (part 1)
Message-ID: <2586@azure.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 29-Feb-84 15:52:00 EST
Article-I.D.: azure.2586
Posted: Wed Feb 29 15:52:00 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 3-Mar-84 10:31:18 EST
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Lines: 38

David Norris has finally confronted my arguments point by point.  While I
congratulate him for his straightforwardness in this matter, it has taken him
so long to generate this type of response that I (and probably many others) have
gotten quite bored with the whole omniscience/free will affair.  

This article, which is a brief and general response to David's major points,
will be immediately followed by a long article that is a point-by-point
rebuttal of David's last article.  Due to the confusing nature of extensive
nested arguments and the boring nature of endless repetition, I will post no 
further long articles on this subject.  

David's major premises throughout the omniscience/free will discussion seem to 
be the following:

1.  We cannot properly address the issues at hand and thus (by implication) 
should accept David's conception of God.  

2.  The model that I used to explain an omniscient creator is too simple and
therefore incorrect.

Of course, even though my understanding of this subject is severely flawed by
my human perspective, we are given to believe that somehow David knows how God
operates.  If these issues are so all-fired unaddressable, then I wonder how 
David so sure that he understands the "truth"?

My "omniscient creator" model is very simple.  In fact, it's so simple that I
can't understand why David doesn't find a way to attack the model directly.
Instead, he repeats over and over that the issues involved are "unaddressable,"
or that the model is too simple.  Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but according
to current scientific practice the theoretical model that best explains all
the available data in the simplest manner is the preferred model.  (I realize
that we're dealing with mythology rather than science, but my point is still
valid.)  Unless David can explain how my model does not fit the available data
or offer a simpler model that better explains that data, he is not successfully
attacking my model.

			Jon White
			[decvax|ucbvax]!tektronix!tekmdp!azure!jonw