Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bbncca.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!bbncca!rrizzo
From: rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Jon's 5 points
Message-ID: <608@bbncca.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 1-Mar-84 17:55:00 EST
Article-I.D.: bbncca.608
Posted: Thu Mar  1 17:55:00 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 2-Mar-84 01:10:38 EST
References: <861@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma.
Lines: 19

Those who don't see any necessary contradiction between free will &
omnipotence (god's or anyone/thing else's) should think about the
last sentence in Laura Creighton's article:

>       What God uses to make a prediction is a condition [or law,
>       etc.] which constrains me to behave in a not-free manner.

Talking about knowing everything (past, present, future) at once
and for always (in order to be able to say that God need not indulge
in "predictions") is MEANINGLESS.  Such a God would exist "out of
time", which is the same as saying such a God does not exist.  The
very idea of "existence" we use depends on the prior idea of "time".

(Also, the idea of "knowledge of everything", as opposed to "all that
can be known" or even "all knowledge" is meaningless, incapable of
being cogently described.)

So:  God must make something like "predictions".  Infallible ones,
of course.  To predict means to invoke a rule (condition, law, etc.)