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