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 2)
Message-ID: <2587@azure.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 29-Feb-84 15:55:42 EST
Article-I.D.: azure.2587
Posted: Wed Feb 29 15:55:42 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 3-Mar-84 10:32:35 EST
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Lines: 205

This is a lengthy, point-by-point response to David Norris' last article.  As
I mentioned in part 1, this will be the last long article that I post on this
subject.  I suspect that both David and myself have said about everything that
we have to say.

Throughout this discussion, David has consistently maintained that we humans
can never really understand the issues involved.  Here is an example from 
David that appears to illustrate this point:

>>   1.  Firstly, the statements in themselves cheat.  Examples:
>>	a) "..created entire lifetime of the universe at the moment of creation"
>>	b) "..entire lifetime of the universe already exists"
>>
>>   See?  What does it mean that the entire lifetime of the universe
>>   already exists? Reworded, "the future already exists."  Do you mean it
>>   exists *now*?  The future doesn't exist *now*, it exists in the future.

[Jon]
> I think part of your problem is that you may be confusing God's time with
>our time.  The two are not at all related.  The entire lifetime of the universe
>already exists in God's time, but for us the future doesn't seem to exist yet. 

[David]
   I wasn't going to say anything about this paragraph, but there are two
   inconsist[e]ncies which require pointing out.  One, the phrase "God's
   time" is yet another example of how the statement cheats.  Jon explains
   in the next paragraph that God of course is not constrained by time (I
   used the phrase "Unbounded Now", and for clarity's sake, perhaps we had
   best stick with this phrase as a definition).  

Once again, David, you are confusing God's time with our time.  I doubt that
anyone would argue with the statement that God is not restrained by OUR time.
Just exactly how God is restrained by His own time (and I only use the term
"time" for convenience here) is entirely another question.  It does, however,
appear that He has constraints that are caused by His own omniscience (namely,
He lacks the power to give free will to Himself or us), and so it might be
reasonable to conclude that He could have other restraints as well.  After all,
He is incapable of committing evil, right?

[David]
   But there is a second problem with the paragraph: "The future doesn't seem 
   to exist yet." This implies that it does exist; but we haven't got there 
   yet.  This is somewhat inconsist[e]nt with another of Jon's arguments, and 
   I'll refer to it then.

I have always maintained that given an omniscient creator, the creation's 
future already exists in that creator's time.  I'm not sure what David is 
trying to say.  Here is the statement that is supposedly "inconsistent" to my 
above statement:

> The reason we don't have
> free will (if an omniscient creator exists) is because God must have 
> instantaneously created the entire lifetime of the universe with perfect 
> foreknowledge.

I don't see why these two statements are inconsistent.  David?

[David]
   The statement "cheats" again: he "instantaneously created".  But I now
   refer back to the first paragraph, where Jon implies that the reason
   man does not have free will is that the future exists (because God has
   already created it).  What is the logical connection between the future
   already existing and an omniscient God having created it?

Just exactly what "first paragraph" are you referring to?  Anyway, the logical
connection is that a creator could not be omniscient if the creation consisted
merely of an initial state to which subsequent states spontaneously layered
themselves.  An omniscient creator therefore creates the future (from the
view of those inside the creation).

   There appears to be a contradiction.  You have said that man would have
   free will if the concept "outside time" has meaning; or, to put it
   bluntly, that the future is in existence in that domain.  Why does that
   fact that God "created" (loosely used) this domain obviate human free will?

If God has already created our future, then we are merely acting from a script 
that God wrote.  I can't make it any more clear.

[David]
>>   *Now* is a difficult word to apply to God, since it was invented and
>>   refers to being "inside" of time.  Our past, present, and future are
>>   all part of God's infinite Now.  God does not exist in the "future".
>>   He exists.

[Jon]
> Exactly my point!  The entire lifetime of the universe is part of God's
> infinite "Now."  He exists in our past, present, and future.  Our future is
> part of God's Now; therefore, He has already created our future for us.  He
> is even making me write this at this very moment! :-)

[David]
   The statement is still cheating, Jon.  "He has already created" - the 
   statement is phrased in the past tense.  He did it; it has been done.  
   These all imply that God is constrained by time (as evidenced by "did" 
   and "done"). 

Oh, come on, David.  If the universe exists, it HAS BEEN created (in our time).
If God is omniscient, then the entire lifetime of the universe HAS BEEN created
(in God's time).  I don't see why it is unreasonable to expect that God is
constrained by His own time.

[David]
>>   Of course, the point I'm trying to make is that trying to prove Jon's
>>   point by "reaching outside of time", so to speak, is doomed to failure,
>>   because such questions are simply unaddressable.  What was God doing
>>   before time began? The questioner is cheating; he has to reach back
>>   into time to phrase his question (as evidenced by the word "before").
>>   If you disagree, keep the original question in mind and answer "When
>>   was the moment of creation?"  This is yet another trick question, yet
>>   is the substance on which Jon's argument is founded.

[Jon]
> This is not really so difficult as you make out.  The moment of creation is
> the beginning of our time, but is also an event in God's time that is totally
> unrelated to our time.  Therefore, it may not seem reasonable for us to speak 
> in terms such as "before creation" because in our time there is no such thing.
> However, in God's view (which is, I'm sure you'll agree, the ONLY accurate
> view) there is a point at which our time began and even a "period" before our 
> time began.

[David]
   As I said, this was a trick question.  You have used temporal references to
   describe the creation of the universe (an "event" in God's "time"),  and to
   describe God's Unbounded Now (a "point" at which our...a "period" "before" 
   our time).  Still, the question remains unanswered.  When was the moment of
   creation?

This is terrific.  Here we have an adherent of a mythical creator basically 
arguing that the creator is so incomprehensible that we should all give up and 
accept his conception of this incomprehensible being.  I have already answered 
your "trick" question, now how about you answering mine:  do you agree that God
has the ONLY accurate view of space and time?  If so, then I suggest that you 
do the following:

1. Admit that your illusion of free will is meaningless.

2. Admit that you don't know enough to continue this discussion.

3. Send your life's savings to Jerry Falwell.

Here are David's answers to my questions (rephrased by David):

1.  God created entire lifetime of the universe at the moment of creation.

   The statement cheats.  It describes actions of God in the past and present
   tense ("created" and "moment of creation").  You have commit[t]ed a reductive
   fallacy, creating a simple premise on complex events, perhaps too complex for
   us to understand.

On the contrary, you have committed "argumentum ab Norrisum."  You have 
attempted to refute a simple model by claiming that it is too simple rather 
than showing that the model is incorrect.  (See discussion in part 1.)

2.  If 1, then all of our individual destinies are pre-ordained by God, and we
    do not have free will.

   The conclusion is not justified from the premise.  Why are our destinies pre-
   ordained by God?  The assumption is that God created "our" future, God 
   "created" us in our future, God "created" our entire lives and controls us. 
   The argument begs the question.

Wrong.  If you are saying that God does exist in our future yet has not already
created that future, then I want hear your reasoning.  If you agree that He has
already created that future, then how can you possibly believe that you have
free will?  Please explain.

3.  If not 1, how is God omniscient?

   You have created a faulty dilemma.  You assume that there are only two
   alternatives, when there are more than two.  Both alternatives are based on 
   the inconsist[e]ncy in point 1.

If you have an alternative to point #1 that allows for an omniscient creator
who can endow his creation with free will, then I want to hear it.

4.  Present contradiction from a different propective [perspective?].  If God 
    knows what we're going to do, is there anything we can do to change the 
    future actions God already thinks we will take?

I'll accept David's counter-argument on this one.  In order for me to properly
defend this point, I would have to fall back on the type of "free will is
irrelevant" argument that is being advanced by Byron and Darrell.  (I don't
disagree with their point, but it is quite a bit different from my
"omniscience implies determinism" argument.

5.  I have shown that there is an inherent contradiction between 
    omniscience and free will.

   Your conclusion (that there is a contradiction) is based on on a reductive
   fallacy.  You have reduced an extremely complex issue (God and space-time), 
   one that I (and many others) contend is unaddressable, into a simple one, 
   easily manipulated.  Dogmatic assertion of your conclusion becomes, I think,
   an "argumentum ad ignorantiam"; i.e., since one position cannot be proven, 
   the other wins by default.

Aha! Another classic case of "argumentum ab Norrisum."  Just because I have
developed a simple model, it doesn't necessarily follow that the model is
incorrect.  Just because YOU claim that the issues encompassed in my model are
unaddressable, it doesn't necessarily follow that the model is incorrect.

David, your continued attempts to either evade or obscure the issue have not
been successful.

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