Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site fortune.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!fortune!polard From: polard@fortune.UUCP (Henry Polard) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: Omniscience and Freedom Message-ID: <4424@fortune.UUCP> Date: Fri, 5-Oct-84 17:04:25 EDT Article-I.D.: fortune.4424 Posted: Fri Oct 5 17:04:25 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 6-Oct-84 05:25:02 EDT References: <379@wucs.UUCP> <423@hou2a.UUCP> Reply-To: polard@fortune.UUCP (Henry ) Organization: Fortune Systems, Redwood City, CA Lines: 45 Keywords: Omniscience God Summary: Our concepts don't dictate the nature of beings.y In article <423@hou2a.UUCP> 54375rr@hou2a.UUCP (R.RENNINGER) writes: >There can be no time at which an omniscient being makes a >decision, because otherwise previously he would not know what >his future action would be. >For those who would answer that God operates "outside of >time," I reply that the idea of a "consciousness" >that doesn't operate in a causal sequence is simply >unrelated to anything I associate with consciousness. >If God's mind operates in some kind of "meta-time," then the >paradox is unresolved; it just retreats to another realm. >On the other hand, if His mind is unchangeing, I don't see how >to justify calling It a "mind" at all. Consciousness to me >is inextricably caught up in the idea of continual new >reactions to the world or at least in reminiscences about past >knowledge considered in a new light. The idea of a mind >without any mental activity needs some justification, to say >the least. > > Bob Renninger > hou2a!54375rr Sir: You seem to think that _your_ beliefs have somethng to do with the nature of God. If He "exists", so to speak, what He is like may well have nothing to do with how you and I finally decide on how to use words like "mind" and "consciousness". With respect to God or any other superior being or force or whatever, we are like the proverbial seven blind blind men and the elephant. Anything we say is impure speculation. They or it or Him will do whatever they or it or He damn well pleases. If we think it is contradictory or impossible or generally un-God-like, that's _our_ problem. We can't accurately define people, including ourselves, since just about everyone does something unpredictable at least once. How can we then hope to define a supeior being with certainty? Yours for a universe filled with surprises. -- Henry Polard (You bring the flames - I'll bring the marshmallows.) {ihnp4,cbosgd,amd}!fortune!polard N.B: The words in this posting do not necessarily express the opinions of me, my employer, or any AI project.