david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris) (02/22/84)
In reply to Jon White: > This article is another attempt to get David Norris to understand the > contradiction between omniscience and free will (as I see it, anyway.) I might interject and point out that, if this were the case, netmail might be more appropriate. If, however, you would like to carry on a public discussion, along with Darrell Plank and Byron Howes, that's ok with me. I think everyone can benefit from this particular discussion. (and its fun!) >> ... Are you saying that none of us have free will, or that God (as >> Christians think of Him) doesn't exist because we have free will? Jon replied: > Take your pick. I'm just trying to explain the contradiction in the clearest > and simplest terms I know how. As a religious skeptic (not Atheist), I would > choose the latter, but you are free to make your own choice. :-) I had to think about this one for a bit; at first I thought you were being wishy-washy. But perhaps a better word is devil's advocate? I hope that you apply this same thinking to atheists. But for arguments sake, I will assume that you are trying to assert that God doesn't exist because we have free will. >If I misunderstood you, then perhaps you would be kind enough to point out just > exactly what I misunderstood. Are you saying that my attempt to understand > the limitations of the Christian God is NOT futile? Tough question, albeit slightly misworded. The assumption that the Christian God has limitations has no proof (or disproof). But aren't you putting God in a no-win position? Now for a trick question. Assume for the sake of argument that God exists. Do you believe that men should be able to fully understand Him? (In order to get anywhere, anticipate my possible response to your answer). > Also, David, you failed to respond to my point (which you conveniently > omitted). In response to your argument that God was beyond our understanding > (somehow implying that your conception of this incomprehensible being is more > accurate than mine!), I mentioned that: "I doubt that you would accept the > same argument from an adherent of Zeus or the Great Ubizmo." This may appear >to be a flippant comment, but it shows how weak your rationalization really is. > Unless you want to go through life accepting every deity whose followers claim > is beyond your understanding, you'd better come up with a better excuse for > your God. I did not respond to this argument because I agree with it. The same logic will hold true for Zeus or Ubizmo. But the reasons I accept Christ and not Ubizmo are different. This is a separate argument. If, for example, a Ubizmoan (sp?) told me that Ubizmo was beyond our understanding, I might ask why he believes Ubizmo instead of Zeus or Jesus. I would present the Bible as historical evidence for Jesus. If you want to argue about the reliability of the Bible, fine; but realize that that is a DIFFERENT ARGUMENT. So no flames about "blindly accepting the Bible as truth"; let's keep to the subject for a change, ok? Forgive me, but the tone of your discussion appears to be getting a little raw at this point. I am not making "excuses" for God (as if He needed me to defend Him!), nor do I imply that my conception of God is more accurate than yours. I am trying to offer a reasonable solution to the problems of omniscience and free will. Remember, too, that brilliant men through the ages have taken stands on *both* sides of this issue, with no resolution. I submit that this is sufficient grounds to state that you don't have to give up intellectual integrity to be a Christian. (This, too, is a trick argument, one that I hope you will not refute). > By the way, I have no training in philosophy or rigorous logic. I would be > very interested in seeing someone poke holes in my reasoning and resolve this > contradiction. If Christians allow this contradiction to stand, it is a > devastating blow to their theology. After all, what is the point of even > trying to live according to God's law if our fates are already decided? If > God knows in precise detail every action that we are ever going to take, is >there anything that we can do to change the future actions that God thinks that > we will take? If we could somehow surprise God and change those future > actions, His omniscience would be invalidated. In all honesty, I think that we are both in the same boat in that we each have our arguments, pro and con, and simply don't want to be persuaded. Perhaps others may benefit from the discussion. I was going to mention something about the presumption that God is not omnipotent (i.e., God is all-powerful so He can do anything). This would be getting into even more hot-water, since I don't think it is possible for God to do things which are inherently self-contradictory. The flaw in your logic, Jon, as I see it, is that you falsely assume that *knowledge* is the same as *control*. To *know* something is not to *do* it. -- David Norris :-) -- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david
jonw@azure.UUCP (Jonathan White) (02/23/84)
David Norris may be having "fun" in this discussion, but thus far he has contributed little of substance. Careful readers (and even not-so-careful readers) of David's latest free will article may have noticed that he did absolutely nothing to resolve the contradiction between omniscience and free will; he merely picked away at some peripheral points. To avoid being accused of making vague accusations, I will briefly summarize the points that David seems unwilling to address and give him another chance. First of all, I agree with the following statement from David: ...I don't think it is possible for God to do things which are inherently self-contradictory. In fact, it can even be proven that an omnipotent and omniscient being is incapable of doing anything (self-contradictory or not) that it does not "normally" do. Proof upon request. Anyway, because God cannot do things that are inherently self-contradictory, He cannot be omniscient if we truly have free will. Conversely, if He is omniscient, we cannot possibly have free will. Christians can't have it both ways unless they can successfully resolve the contradiction. Now for a recap of the points to which David seems reluctant to respond: 1. It should be obvious that an omnipotent and omniscient being would not be constrained by "our" time. Therefore, God, by definition, is in a constant state of being everywhere (past, present, and future) at once. Because God exists in the future (as well as everywhere else), it stands to reason that there must be a future out there for Him to exist in. Therefore, God must have created the entire lifetime of the universe at the moment of creation. 2. If you accept the model set forth in step #1 (the entire lifetime of the universe already exists), then you must accept that all of our individual destinies are preordained by God. That is, we do not have free will. 3. If you reject the model set forth in step #1, then you must explain how God could be omniscient if the entire lifetime of the universe does not already exist. Earlier I suggested a possible alternative to this model, which you could accept if you reject the model in step #1: God created only the initial state of the universe, and subsequent states spontaneously "layered" themselves on to previous states. However, this would mean that there are future states that do not yet exist for God to observe (or exist in), and His omniscience would be invalidated. 4. To present this contradiction from a different perspective: If God knows in precise detail every action that we are ever going to take, is there anything that we can do to change the future actions that God thinks that we will take? If we could somehow surprise God and change those future actions, His omniscience would be invalidated. 5. I have shown in the above four steps that there is an inherent contradiction between omniscience and free will. If Christians allow this contradiction to stand, it is a devastating blow to their theology. After all, what is the point of even trying to live according to God's law if our fates are already decided? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here is the only statement from David that attempts to refute the above points: The flaw in your logic, Jon, as I see it, is that you falsely assume that *knowledge* is the same as *control*. To *know* something is not to *do* it. It is obvious that David has not struck at the heart of the matter. Merely saying that knowledge is not the same as control does not even come close to resolving the contradiction. I hope that in David's next submission he provides us with an answer for each of the above points or at least admits that he is stuck with the contradiction. It is unbecoming for a Christian to exhibit such evasive behavior. :-) Jon White [decvax|ucbvax]!tektronix!tekmdp!azure!jonw