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.)