Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!speaker From: speaker@umcp-cs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Re: YAOFW (Yet another Omni/Free Will) Message-ID: <5657@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Sat, 3-Mar-84 19:20:52 EST Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.5657 Posted: Sat Mar 3 19:20:52 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 5-Mar-84 00:38:24 EST Organization: Univ. of Maryland, Computer Science Dept. Lines: 144 From: laura@utzoo.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion Hello gang. Hello Laura. 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). Interesting propositon... let's see if you can pull it off. "If God can do anything, then can he create a round square". 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. Words, words words... merely a restatement of your original proposition. The fact that "round" and "square" are exclusive IN NO WAY lends creedence to your statement that "free will" and "omniscience" are exclusive. 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. What you are looking for is a metaphysical agent to distinguish "free will" from the rest of existance. But you ruled this out in your original proposition... and I don't think you're going to claim that there is anything metaphysical about the mind of man... especially when you haven't granted God similar attributes. This is the very point at which we should find your proof that the two are mutually exclusive... and we find only a hand-wave. C'mon Laura, I know you can do better than this. "My very self is thus no more significant to my decisions than the clothes I wear or the size of my feet..." hardly constitutes much of a proof. Your argument is the old, "Predestination both removes all of my free will, and my responsibility." It has also been used to justify many religious beliefs. What if your actions ARE predictable? You are still free to act. You might know exactly what gold futures are going to do tomorrow... but that won't change the value of gold in the sightest... nor will it change the actions of ivestors the world over... unless you tell them, but that STILL doesn't exclude freedom of action. Their freedom to act has remained unchanged, and their responsibility unchanged. In this case, the notion of personal responsibility vanishes. Well yes and no. Apparently God reserves the right to sit back and "watch" for himself. Then again, perhaps he doesn't use his omniscience that often. Maybe he likes surprises! No, it only means that you were under no duress to act or restrict your actions. God neither aids nor restricts those who make such decisions, thus it still remains YOUR responsibility even though he could tell you what you are going to do, and what the ramifications of your actions will be. Actually, I'll amend that. There ARE times in the Bible (let's talk about that God for a moment) in which God makes vague statements concerning the future of peoples and the world... but I would hardly call these predictions any kind of restraint on the actions of man. In fact, predictions or not, mankind just continues on his typically destructive path. If the Bible is any kind of window to the future, it certainly isn't stopping us. Now you might argue... "Well, the fact that it was all predestined removes all of the non-determinism from the situation. I contend that as long as God does not act upon his omniscience, you're still in good shape. Here's another example of what I mean... I can take a program, and given that the environment it runs in is predictable and stable, tell you EXACTLY what the outcome will be. This in no way prevents the program from operating. It does not remove that program's ability to make "free-willed" decisions. Yes, that makes man little more than an automaton, but it still works. It might also be that God is omniscient, but does not use this omniscience to the degree that you suggest... for the very reasons that I suggest. If he did, it would make his creations little more than automatons. Mother Teresa had not choice in the matter -- she had to be what she had to be given her conditioning or her chemistry. Exactly. 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. Words, words, words... there is nothing to exclude the existance of determinist/behaviourists... It is logically valid, although I doubt that the determinist/behaviorists are correct. 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. Words, words, words... WHY does this fact make your actions "not-free." Your actions are perfectly free... just known. This is merely a restatement of your original proposal and not a proof to it. Your action becomes free will even if known before-hand. Whatever God uses to make a prediction is a condition which constrains me to behave in a not-free manner. Another restatement. I know exactly where you're coming from, Laura, but I think you argument is more intuitive than anything else.