david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris) (03/03/84)
I've combined Jon's 2 responses into one. I apologize for the length, but I don't want to be reprimanded (again) for omission: > David's major premises throughout the omniscience/free will discussion seem to > be the following: > > 1. We cannot properly address the issues at hand and thus (by implication) > should accept David's conception of God. > > 2. The model that I used to explain an omniscient creator is too simple and > therefore incorrect. > > Of course, even though my understanding of this subject is severely flawed by > my human perspective, we are given to believe that somehow David knows how God > operates. If these issues are so all-fired unaddressable, then I wonder how > David so sure that he understands the "truth"? I don't think that #1 can be concluded from my arguments. In fact, I'm surprised that no one has discovered that my argument is indeed a two-edged sword. I can't use it to "prove" that Omniscience and Free Will are NOT contradictory! I've never said (for this argument, anyway) that we must "therefore" accept God. Only that we can't prove or disprove this particular aspect of God. My arguments give nothing to the belief that I understand God more or less than anybody else, or that I understand the "truth." I would certainly not use this discussion to try to convince anyone of the truth of Christianity! I accept that Omniscience does not invalidate Free Will. Not because it can be proven; it can't. But I maintain that it can't be disproven either, and I can adequately defend that belief (if nothing else, I can point to the works of other great philosphers - more on this later). I am set free to choose whichever option I wish, understanding that niether position can be proven. Note that I am not trying to show that Omni and Free Will are compatible. I'm trying to show that they are not incompatible. There is a difference. > My "omniscient creator" model is very simple. In fact, it's so simple that I > can't understand why David doesn't find a way to attack the model directly. >Instead, he repeats over and over that the issues involved are "unaddressable," > or that the model is too simple. Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but according > to current scientific practice the theoretical model that best explains all > the available data in the simplest manner is the preferred model. (I realize > that we're dealing with mythology rather than science, but my point is still > valid.) Unless David can explain how my model does not fit the available data >or offer a simpler model that better explains that data, he is not successfully > attacking my model. As I've said, the premise on which this model is based is flawed, and it is this premise that I'm addressing. The very basis of my argument precludes me from building a "model." The same reasoning would prove that my model would be just as invalid as Jon's. Jon's is an argument from ignorance; i.e., my model is valid because you don't have a better model. This lends no truth to the model itself. It was once believed that the stars were fixed on the inside of a sphere. The non-existence of another model did not "prove" that the fixed-star theory was correct; if man had never developed the art of astronomy, we might still believe that model. The failure to establish one position does not necessarily establish another. And now for Jon's 2nd article (highly edited for brevity): > Once again, David, you are confusing God's time with our time. I doubt that > anyone would argue with the statement that God is not restrained by OUR time. > Just exactly how God is restrained by His own time (and I only use the term > "time" for convenience here) is entirely another question. It does, however, > appear that He has constraints that are caused by His own omniscience (namely, > He lacks the power to give free will to Himself or us), and so it might be >reasonable to conclude that He could have other restraints as well. After all, > He is incapable of committing evil, right? The "constraints" caused by God's omniscience are what you are trying to prove. Trying to use this to prove your argument would be begging the question. But the statement that God is incapable of committing evil arises from the fact that good and evil are mutually exclusive. What you are trying to demonstrate is that Omniscience and Free will are also mutually exclusive. The paragraph only re-defines the problem. >> 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? >If God has already created our future, then we are merely acting from a script > that God wrote. I can't make it any more clear. Perhaps this is where we have a misunderstanding. If God has already created our entire lives, then we don't have free will. But there is as yet no logical connection between omniscience and this "creating." But the next paragraph further explains Jon's position: >> 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"). >Oh, come on, David. If the universe exists, it HAS BEEN created (in our time). >If God is omniscient, then the entire lifetime of the universe HAS BEEN created > (in God's time). I don't see why it is unreasonable to expect that God is > constrained by His own time. No. In "our time", the future does not as yet exist. We have yet to make the free will decisions that will, in the final outcome, determine the destiny of our souls. What does it mean that "God 'created' the future?" That He created our lives, past, present, and future? If this is what is implied, I'll ask for substantiation for this claim. Since this is obviously not Jon's position, I'll ask why God has to have created our entire lives to be omniscient? Or, what is the connection between "creating the future" and "creating our lives?" A simple model would be to say that the future is likened to a stage, and we make choices while we are on it. But remember, this is an analogy and only serves to illustrate. I could take my main point and show that even this model is improper. Again, more on this subject in a moment. >> 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? > This is terrific. Here we have an adherent of a mythical creator basically >arguing that the creator is so incomprehensible that we should all give up and >accept his conception of this incomprehensible being. I have already answered >your "trick" question, now how about you answering mine: do you agree that God > has the ONLY accurate view of space and time? If so, then I suggest that you > do the following: > 1. Admit that your illusion of free will is meaningless. > 2. Admit that you don't know enough to continue this discussion. > 3. Send your life's savings to Jerry Falwell. I was hoping that the discussion wouldn't come down to this level. What kind of logic is this? I thought you were above this drivel, Jon. "..adherent of a mythical creator.." - Flat assertion that God does not exist. Also Jon manages to "poison the well" by appealing to a group on net.religion who have beliefs similar to his. ("Dave is wrong because he is a Christian"). An individual may believe this, but ask now whose beliefs are the more substantiated? "...we should all give up and accept his conception..." As I've said earlier, I am not doing this. I am providing a Christian answer to an apparent dilemma. If I wanted to evangelize I would use my personal experience coupled with historical fact, guided by the Holy Spirit. "I have already answered your 'trick' question..." I hoped you wouldn't try this. You have placed yourself on a level above great philosophers such as Augustine, who proved that such a question cannot be properly addressed. This was the "trick." To claim an adequate answer to the question is to proclaim insight greater than most of the great philosophers. "Admit that your illusion of free will is meaningless" Assumes that Jon has "won" the argument, and that I am wrong 'de facto'. "Admit you are wrong" has a strong emotional appeal, but does nothing to strengthen your case (except to those who already believe your conclusion). Finally, "Admit that you don't know enough to continue this discussion" and "Send your life-savings to Jerry Falwell" Seriously, just how much do any of the above statements add to the argument? Don't they amount to sheer disgust (or even hatred) at a person who disagrees with your point of view, and (effectively) argues against it? This discussion has degraded into too much of the verbal abuse that we see so much of in this newsgroup. There is one point Jon makes I'll agree with; there is not much else to be said. (I might ask why the above verbal abuse was included in the article, though). If you are frustrated at my arguments against your position, I could conclude that I am making sense but that you are unwilling to abandon your illogical argument. If I am not making sense, then you could simply supply an argument that refutes me. If it appears that I am only parroting past argument, I suggest that net readers go back and re-read the entire discussion and make their own decision. In any case, verbal hatred such as that exhibited above is not worthy of this profession or this newsgroup. And now for a brief summary of the 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 commit[t]ed a reductive >> fallacy, creating a simple premise on complex events, perhaps too complex for >> us to understand. > On the contrary, you have committed "argumentum ab Norrisum." You have > attempted to refute a simple model by claiming that it is too simple rather > than showing that the model is incorrect. (See discussion in part 1.) "Argumentum ab Norrisum?" Are you saying that there is no danger in making a model too simple? Or are you simply abusing me for my use of logical terms? From a simple model of a boulder, I could conclude that it won't do me any harm. But if I have neglected the fact that the boulder has some velocity, my model won't keep me from being crushed. The next answer describes the aspect which Jon's model fails to take into account (which I will again repeat in my summary). "Argumentum ab Norrisum" is somewhat comical, but if you only want to poke fun at my attempt to use some logic, the discussion is degraded to grade school level. * 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. >Wrong. If you are saying that God does exist in our future yet has not already >created that future, then I want hear your reasoning. If you agree that He has > already created that future, then how can you possibly believe that you have > free will? Please explain. I have explained that it cannot be explained. For us, the future does not yet exist. For God, the word 'future' is misleading; He exists in His Unbounded Now. To say "God created the future," we must also be prepared to say "God is creating the future" and "God will create the future" in order to fully explain His Unbounded Now. These statements make little sense because they rely on our preceptions of time. Thus, the phrase "God has created the future" is a language trick, which neglects the full definition of God's Unbounded Now and takes advantage of our perceptions of space and time. The logical term for this is "Special Pleading" (or "Neglected Aspect"). Again, more on this in he summary. * 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 inconsist[e]ncy in point 1. > If you have an alternative to point #1 that allows for an omniscient creator > who can endow his creation with free will, then I want to hear it. Precisely my point. I do not have an alternative, because I realize that even such an alternative would be based on faulty logic as presented in point 2. * 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. > Aha! Another classic case of "argumentum ab Norrisum." Just because I have > developed a simple model, it doesn't necessarily follow that the model is > incorrect. Just because YOU claim that the issues encompassed in my model are > unaddressable, it doesn't necessarily follow that the model is incorrect. No, it doesn't. But all that you've said is that MY claims of unaddressability (?) don't disprove your model. The unaddressable issues themselves prove your model is flawed. What does it matter who makes the claim? You'll have to show that these issues are, in fact, addressable, and that they have sufficient logical basis to be used as a premise for your model. > David, your continued attempts to either evade or obscure the issue have not > been successful. This is simply dogmatic assertion, and lends little to Jon's argument. I had hoped that Jon would let readers draw their own conclusions. In summary, I apologize for submitting yet another lengthy article (for those who wonder where I get the time to do this, it is now 8:05 pm PST). I have tried to show that any attempt to answer questions about the nature of God's Omniscience outside of time are flawed (like asking what God was doing before time). Jon's simplistic model operates on the idea that the future "has already been created." But to fully express God's Unbounded Now you will have to add the statement that the future "is going to be created." To take the truly opposite side from Jon, I may conclude that we have free will because, as I have shown, God has not yet created the future. And to correctly argue against this argument, Jon's argument will be undermined as well. Ralph Johnson, in a recent contribution, puts me to shame by summarizing in one paragraph what I've expounded on for several articles. Another point, and I am done. As Samuel Johnson said, "Sir, I have found you an argument; I am not obliged to find you an understanding." -- David Norris :-) -- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david