Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ssc-vax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david
From: david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Jon's 5 points
Message-ID: <861@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 27-Feb-84 13:59:33 EST
Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.861
Posted: Mon Feb 27 13:59:33 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 29-Feb-84 07:30:39 EST
Organization: Boeing Aerospace, Seattle
Lines: 147

I explained in my last article about how statements about God and time often
"cheat":

>>   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.

To which Jon White replies:

> 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. 

I wasn't going to say anything about this paragraph, but there are two
inconsistancies 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).  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 inconsistant with another of Jon's arguments, and
I'll refer to it then.

>>   *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.

> 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! :-)

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"). 

>>   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.

> 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.

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?

>>   2.  This is going to sound like my old argument.  You may assume, for the
>>   moment, that God does not exist.  Does the concept of being "outside" time
>>  have any meaning?  If so, then (by your argument) none of us have free will,
>>   since the future "already exists."  

> Wrong.  By my argument, if no God exists, then we have free will even though 
> there is such a thing as being "outside of time."  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.

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? 

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?

> The omniscience/free will contradiction still stands.  Merely repeating over
> and over that this issue is "unaddressable" does not resolve the
> contradiction.  David, do you care to try to attack these two points again, or
> would you prefer to have a shot at the three that you didn't mention?

Ok.  Here all all 5 points:

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 commited a reductive
fallacy, creating a simple premise on complex events, perhaps too complex for
us to understand.

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.

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
inconsistancy in point 1.

4.  Present contradiction from a different propective.  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?

This proposition is very badly worded, and is another form of the faulty
dilemma (like asking if you have stopped beating your wife).  But it goes back
to an earlier statement, foreknowledge does not imply control.  There is another
alternative.  We have the free will to make choices which decide what the future
will look like.  God sees the results of those decisions. Your statement implies
that, unless we can somehow "surprise" God, we don't have free will.  Again, it
begs the question:  We have to be able to "surprise" God to have free will,
but that obviates His Omniscience.  

Here is a thought experiment.  I construct a time machine, go into the future,
observe my actions at 12am, then return.  I already "know" what I'll be doing
tomorrow, but I resolve to do something else.  12am comes, and I do something
else.  But if I've done something else, then I must have seen myself doing
that something else in my time machine trip.  Upon return from my trip, then,
I resolve...  See the dilemma?  Your question cannot be properly answered. 

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.

	-- David Norris        :-)
	-- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david