Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!laura
From: laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: YAOFW (Yet another Omni/Free Will)
Message-ID: <3586@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 28-Feb-84 21:13:39 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.3586
Posted: Tue Feb 28 21:13:39 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 28-Feb-84 21:13:39 EST
References: <858@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 112

Hello gang.

	Despite claims to the contrary, I haven't been sent to eternal
damnation. Those of you who are waiting for the day are just going to
have to keep waiting.

	I want to get into this debate, from a slightly different perspective.
Mostly, though I am coming down on the same side as Jon White and Darrell Plank.
I think that I am making a hash of Byron Howes argument, though, so what I
need from him is a distinction between "time from God's perspective" and
"time from man's perspective". My whole argument hinges on time being 
invariant over anybody's perception of it. If this is not the case, chaos
invariably follows in this (and most) arguments.

Okay. what I want to demonstrate is that "freedom" (something I sincerely and
passionately believe in) and "omniscience" are 2 perfectly valid concepts
which cannot exist in the same universe as realities (as opposed to ideas).

Thus it follows that if man is free then God is not omniciscient IF GOD
IS WITHIN THE UNIVERSE THAT MAN IS IN. We can have multiple universes,
some of which contain omniscinent Gods and some of which contain free agents
 -- what we cannot have is the two existing in the same universe. 

Let me close off one escape hatch first before I get down to the argument.
You do not escape by saying that God is "outside time". God may be outside
time, but if God interacts with man in any way then He must act within time.
Jesus is a very good example of a "God within time" -- given that the Bible is
accurate, he really did have a temporal existence. Thus the God connected with
Christianity exists within time (perhaps in addition to existing outside of
time) which is enough to place Him in our universe. Therefore He is constrained
to either not be omniscient or interact with agents who are not free.

(yes, I know, I know, I haven't demonstrated this yet...)

Okay. there are some very simple-minded arguements against the existence of
God which go:

	"If God can do anything, then can he create a round square".

(if this is the first time you have seen this, it is very old news so please
don't freak out. It is not a very good proof that God cannot exist, though
it is fun to bring up at parties.)

The only thing that you have to do with this argument is to recognise that
the definition of "round" precludes the definition of "square" in the same
object. (as opposed to the definition of "red", for instance). Thus, if
God can create a round square he is going to have to create it in some
universe where "round" and "square" are not mutually exclusive by definition.
Such universes may exist -- but physics there is going to be very different
than physics here. Since I only want to worry about this universe I am sitting
in (which presumably is the same one where Jesus walked around in) I am not
going to worry about this much.

"free will" however and "omniscience" are as mutually exclusive as "round"
and "square". This is a harder point to see, but it is as inescapable.

Free will implies the existence of an agent who does things. Right now I am going
to raise either my right or my left hand. There. I raised my left hand.
Now I am pretty well convinced that *I* did this. I am also pretty well
convinced that nobody could have predicted which hand i was going to raise
since I just made the decision and did it.

Some people would deny this. they would maintain that either God or even
man could predict what hand I was going to raise. Skinnerian behaviourists
could clamour that I was conditioned in some way to respond to this decision
by raising my left hand. Certain others would maintain that if they could
get an accurate representation of the chemicals in my brain they could
predict all the thoughts that I would ever have (using lots of simulation
given te laws of chemistry) and theat they too would be able to predict
that I would raise my left hand.

Suppose they are right. then where does that leave the "I" that did the
raising? Clearly it had no effect on the outcome, since the outcome was
predictable. My very self is thus no more significant to my decisions than
the clothes I wear, or the size of my feet or any one of many other details
about me. Indeed, you begin to see that the "I" is merely the sum of my
experiences or some entirely predictable chemical soup. 

In this case, the notion of personal responsibility vanishes. I was not
responsible for the chemical soup I was born with, and I am not responsible
for who my parents were, and indeed most of the experiences I have had.
(Neither, of course, are my parents under this model -- they are as
unfree as I.) If I am a mass-murderer or a saint it makes no difference --
for the chemical soup or experiences which produced the mass murderer must
produce a mass murderer by definition and the same holds for saints.

Mother Teresa had not choice in the matter -- she had to be what she had to be
given her conditioning or her chemistry.

Something seems wrong here -- huh? I think so as well. 

Now, by what means does one say that God's omniscience is in any way different
than the omniscience of a determinist/behaviourist or a determinist/chemist
in the question? By no means that stikes me as logically valid.

If God knows me so well that He can know whether I will raise my left hand
or my right then it does not matter *how* God knows this (though he can
use Skinnerian Behaviourism or Chemistry if they works ad He wants to),
by the very fact that this was knowable my action becomes not-free. 
Whatever God uses to make a prediction is a condition which constrains me
to behave in a not-free manner.

*	*	*	*	*	*	*

Okay David. See what you make of this.

Laura Creighton
utzoo!laura
-- 

Laura Creighton (NOTE NEW ADDRESS)
utzoo!laura