[Vision2020] city council
roger hayes
rhayes at frontier.com
Sat May 21 08:17:44 PDT 2011
And remember Steed met in secret with that mega-mall developer to
negotiate Moscow supplying city services across the border. This mall
would have competed directly with taxpaying Moscow businesses. Who
does he represent anyway? Moscow? I think not. He brings a history of
arrogance to the office.
Roger Hayes
Moscow
On May 21, 2011, at 6:10 AM, vision2020-request at moscow.com wrote:
> Send Vision2020 mailing list submissions to
> vision2020 at moscow.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/vision2020
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> vision2020-request at moscow.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> vision2020-owner at moscow.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Vision2020 digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. You've Come a Long Way, Baby (Tom Hansen)
> 2. Re: Who Else Feels that . . . (Donovan Arnold)
> 3. Re: Response to Joe, Donovan [More] (Joe Campbell)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 15:56:44 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "Tom Hansen" <thansen at moscow.com>
> Subject: [Vision2020] You've Come a Long Way, Baby
> To: "Moscow Vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Message-ID: <70f17c64b1d156e43f19f2b8e43aad09.squirrel at secure.fsr.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
>
> http://www.tomandrodna.com/Astoria_051911/Astoria_052011_02.JPG
>
> http://www.tomandrodna.com/Astoria_051911/Astoria_052011_03.JPG
>
> On the rebound, Moscow.
>
> Tom Hansen
> Astoria, Oregon
>
> "The Pessimist complains about the wind, the Optimist expects it to
> changeand the Realist adjusts his sails."
>
> - Unknown
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 19:47:26 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Who Else Feels that . . .
> To: Moscow Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>, Sam Scripter
> <MoscowSam at charter.net>
> Message-ID: <437740.61711.qm at web38107.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I am embarrassed for Moscow, truly I am.
> ?
> Donovan Arnold
>
> --- On Fri, 5/20/11, Sam Scripter <MoscowSam at charter.net> wrote:
>
>
> From: Sam Scripter <MoscowSam at charter.net>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Who Else Feels that . . .
> To: "Moscow Vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Date: Friday, May 20, 2011, 6:20 AM
>
>
> It was disgusting to watch that come down in the video of the meeting.
>
> Now I know four individuals not to vote four if they choose to run
> for re-election.
>
> Can someone name here, which council members' terms expire when?
>
> Sam Scripter
>
> Joe Campbell wrote:
> Yes it is hard to say which is more disappointing: Steed's behavior
> or the fact that the rest of that group let him get away with it.
>
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Rosemary Huskey
> <donaldrose at cpcinternet.com> wrote:
>
> Amen. ?In fact, I'll be a blunt (surprising I know). ?He sounded
> like a
> braying southern jackass. The rest of the Council apparently don't
> mind his
> belligerent, boorish behavior or they are so intimidated by him
> that are
> afraid to disagree. ?I've always found that standing up to bullies
> is a
> pretty effective way to shut them down.
> Rose
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-
> bounces at moscow.com]
> On Behalf Of Joe Campbell
> Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 2:36 PM
> To: Tom Hansen
> Cc: Jane Kauzlarich; Friends of the Clearwater; Moscow Vision 2020;
> JeanneMcHale; Fritz Knorr; Brett Haverstick; Marilyn Beckett; Lin
> Laughy;
> Helen Yost; Dinah Zeiger
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Who Else Feels that . . .
>
>
>
> I do!
>
>
>
> On May 17, 2011, at 8:16 PM, "Tom Hansen" <thansen at moscow.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Councilman Steed owes Mayor Chaney an apology for his lack of respect
>> commencing at (or about) the 3:15 mark of . . .
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbkRjjTQjtw
>>
>> Footnote: I will be posting segments of the May 16th City Council
>> session
>> over the next few days as I enjoy Astoria, Oregon's bicentennial
>> celebration. ?I should have the segment concerning the megaloads
>> uploaded
>> Thursday night.
>>
>> Tom Hansen
>> Moscow, Idaho
>>
>> "The Pessimist complains about the wind, the Optimist expects it to
>> changeand the Realist adjusts his sails."
>>
>> - Unknown
>>
>>
>> =======================================================
>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? http://www.fsr.net
>> ? ? ? ? ?mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
>>
>
> =======================================================
> ?List services made available by First Step Internet,
> ?serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? http://www.fsr.net
> ? ? ? ? ?mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.???
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ???http://www.fsr.net? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???
> ? ? ? ? ? mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/
> 20110520/a109fcad/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 06:10:39 -0700
> From: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Response to Joe, Donovan [More]
> To: Art Deco <deco at moscow.com>
> Cc: Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Message-ID: <BANLkTikGDod91FHubjeMsBq0Xb5Gdrkx3w at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> It's not a proof, sorry. You just keep making the same claim over
> and over
> again. Maybe it would be clearer that you're not proving this, just
> making
> the claim, if you wrote out the proof. What are the premises for the
> conclusion that "If God is omniscient, no one has free will." Or
> you could
> give a conditional proof: Suppose, for the sake of argument that
> God is
> omniscient. Now lay out clearly the steps that get you from this
> assumption
> to the claim that no one has free will. Along the way be sure to
> define your
> terms: "Free will" =df. etc.
>
> I can help you get started. Here is one of your claims: "If *all*
> acts of
> humankind are predetermined including mental acts, then there can
> be no
> freedom of choice or so-called free will." Prove that this claim is
> true by
> conditional proof. I'll grant the assumption that "all acts of
> humankind are
> predetermined [in the sense that God knows them to be true]." You
> show how
> the consequence -- "there can be no freedom of choice or so-called
> free
> will" -- follows from the assumption. You might think it is
> contained below
> but it isn't. You just keep repeating the conditional; you have not
> established it.
>
> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Art Deco <deco at moscow.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I am not proving anything about some alleged God except that as
>> described
>> by some, such a God is logically impossible. I have taken
>> traditional
>> definitions and assertions based on those definitions and shown
>> that they
>> lead to a contradiction -- an impossible state of affairs.
>>
>> Your question below was/is answered by 6 - 11 in last post. I see
>> no need
>> to repeat it. These sections demonstrate under the assumptions of
>> omnipotence and omniscience humankind cannot choose in any manner
>> other than
>> what God ordained/determined at the moment of creation. There are no
>> choices that God did not intentionally and *knowingly* determine
>> from the
>> beginning. Hence, there is no such thing as free will under the
>> assumption
>> of God's omnipotence -- all actions of the will and their
>> consequences
>> where known and determined by God at the beginning, else it would
>> be false
>> to say God is omniscient, i.e. God knows *everything*.
>>
>> Please read 6 - 11 below for an expanded description of why this
>> is so.
>>
>> We are stuck here:
>>
>>
>> "However, again if you want to refute the arguments in my analysis
>> of the
>> Problem of Evil, then do it by showing a mistake in their logical
>> structure,
>> not by changing the context of the assertions or by changing the
>> meaning of
>> words that I have taken pains from the beginning to make clear,
>> and meanings
>> which as far as I know are the traditional meanings used by
>> philosophers and
>> theologians. Such tactics are like someone changing the
>> definition of a
>> topological space in order to refute a theorem in topology,"
>>
>> I have clearly defined what omniscient means and the implications
>> of this
>> definition; I believe this definition to be the traditional
>> definition, and
>> hence I am not interested in pursuing a dialog where someone keeps
>> trying to
>> change the definition in order to allow free will, omniscience,
>> etc to be
>> compatible. This dialog makes me feel like being at Subway when
>> asked "What
>> do you want on that?" and I reply "Everything except hot peppers,"
>> but the
>> server continues to ask whether I want each and every particular
>> possible
>> addition to the sandwich under construction.
>>
>> Other Vision 2020 readers can see and decide for themselves what has
>> occurred in this dialog, if they are interested.
>>
>> I am more interested in the exposing the phonies and their
>> motivation in
>> pursuing a clearly logically impossible definition of some alleged
>> God than
>> dealing with those that either cannot, do nor wish to understand
>> or pretend
>> that they have not understood what I have written.
>>
>>
>> w.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
>> *To:* Art Deco <deco at moscow.com>
>> *Sent:* Friday, May 20, 2011 6:07 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Response to Joe, Donovan [More]
>>
>> Let's just stick to one thing at a time. Let's see if you can
>> prove just
>> one part of your story: given that God knows everything -- meaning
>> everything that is true, will be true, or was true -- then no one
>> has free
>> will. You keep saying it. Prove it. We'll go from there.
>>
>> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Art Deco <deco at moscow.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [Sigh!]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> When I wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "However, again if you want to refute the arguments in my
>>> analysis of the
>>> Problem of Evil, then do it by showing a mistake in their logical
>>> structure,
>>> not by changing the context of the assertions or by changing the
>>> meaning of
>>> words that I have taken pains from the beginning to make clear,
>>> and meanings
>>> which as far as I know are the traditional meanings used by
>>> philosophers and
>>> theologians. Such tactics are like someone changing the
>>> definition of a
>>> topological space in order to refute a theorem in topology,"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I thought that this request would be respected. Unfortunately this
>>> didn't happen.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Joe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "It depends entirely on how God knows all things. If God predicts
>>> the
>>> future like we do, then his omnipotence might not yield his
>>> knowing all
>>> things -- past, present, and future. There are factors -- chaos
>>> is one --
>>> which might get in the way of his ability to predict. Again, you
>>> have to
>>> keep an open mind about the idea of an omniscient creature knowing
>>> everything there is to know. If the future is unreal in the sense
>>> that it
>>> has yet to come to pass, there is nothing about it to know."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This is again a transparent attempt to bypass what is most likely an
>>> unpalatable conclusion, namely, if some alleged God is omnipotent
>>> and
>>> omniscient, then humankind does not have free will and God is
>>> responsible
>>> for evil.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In the last and earlier posts, I defined the way I was using
>>> omniscience:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Earlier, to forestall these kinds of claims, I clearly defined the
>>> "omniscience" of the alleged God: "*At all times past, present and
>>> future God knows everything, past, present, and future." There
>>> are no
>>> gaps in God's foreknowledge or knowledge.* I believe that this
>>> is the
>>> traditional definition used by philosophers and theologians who have
>>> discussed this subject. Regardless, this is how I have used the
>>> concept
>>> of omniscience in this discussion. If you want to show that my
>>> analysis
>>> is in error, please use words in the same way I have."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps, that was not clear enough. Perhaps some people, like
>>> some of
>>> the servers at Subway, do not know what "all" or "everything"
>>> means. Hence,
>>> if Joe is confused, others may be also. So I will draw out some
>>> of the
>>> obvious conclusions implicit in the definitions I have given so
>>> that some of
>>> the confusion the words "all" and :everything" may cause might be
>>> reduced.
>>> At all times henceforth the word "God" means "alleged God."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In the formulation of the Problem of Evil under discussion, key
>>> terms are
>>> defined as follows. I believe that these definitions of terms
>>> are not
>>> new, but reflect their traditional usage in philosophical and
>>> theological
>>> dogma and debate.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A. *God is omnipotent* (all powerful) means at a minimum God can
>>> do/cause/ordain/etc anything (plan, event, sequence of events,
>>> creative
>>> acts, etc). For the purposes of human communication God can do
>>> any set
>>> of events which can be expressed in a non-contradictory
>>> combination of
>>> statements. There may be other things God can do which cannot be
>>> formulated by statements which are outside the realm of human
>>> communication
>>> or outside the realm of possible human knowledge, if so, such
>>> powers are not
>>> discussable. In short, God can do anything not linguistically
>>> contradictory.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> B. *God is omniscient *(all knowing)* *means at a minimum at all
>>> times past, present and future God knows everything, past,
>>> present, and
>>> future. There are no gaps in God's foreknowledge or knowledge.
>>> This
>>> knowledge includes knowledge of the universe as we know and exist
>>> in it. God
>>> has, and always has had complete knowledge of the past and
>>> present and has
>>> and always has had complete foreknowledge. There are no errors
>>> in God's
>>> knowledge. God can and does predict everything exactly and
>>> correctly and
>>> in the correct sequence. Given any conditions/states, God knows
>>> what
>>> will result from such conditions/states. God's knowledge extends to
>>> every conceivable thing in the universe including physical events
>>> and mental
>>> events. In the case of mental events, God's knowledge and
>>> foreknowledge
>>> includes all conscious events and states in all human beings
>>> including
>>> feelings and mental acts, which includes all the mental processes
>>> of choice
>>> made or experienced by human beings. God knows exactly in all
>>> cases what
>>> is good and what is evil. God knows, and has always known
>>> everything. There
>>> isn't anything that God does not know.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> C. *God is Omnibenevolent* means at a minimum that God is
>>> perfectly
>>> good, abhors and if it could, would not permit anything evil to
>>> exist,
>>> including something egregiously evil, to exist, and if it could,
>>> would not
>>> permit anything which would cause anything evil to exist. [Note
>>> the use
>>> of the words "anything evil." Only one instance of something
>>> evil is
>>> needed to refute a claim of omnibenevolence.]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *The Problem of Evil:*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. There is a God.
>>>
>>> 2. God is omnipotent.
>>>
>>> 3. God is omniscient.
>>>
>>> 4. God is omnibenevolent.
>>>
>>> 5. God knowingly and intentionally planned and created the
>>> universe
>>> and everything in it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 6. Since God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, and
>>> created the universe, then God is the cause/determiner of
>>> *everything*that happens as a result of its all-knowing and
>>> intentional act of creation
>>> from the moment of that creation. God was/is/will be in complete
>>> control
>>> and the determiner of *everything* at all times. To assert there is
>>> something that God is not in complete control of (something
>>> somehow left to
>>> chance) is to deny either God's omnipotence and/or omniscience.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 7. Since God is omniscient, God had exact foreknowledge of *
>>> everything* that would occur/be determined as a result of its
>>> omnipotent
>>> act of creation. To say God didn't know exactly to a tee what would
>>> occur or be determined as a result of his plan of creation would
>>> be to
>>> contradict God's omniscience.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 8. Since God is omnipotent and omniscient, *everything* that
>>> happens
>>> in the universe was knowingly and intentionally predetermined
>>> from the
>>> moment of creation. Therefore, all future acts of humankind,
>>> including
>>> all mental acts such as the processes of choosing, were
>>> predetermined at
>>> moment of creation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 9. If *all* acts of humankind are predetermined including mental
>>> acts, then there can be no freedom of choice or so-called free
>>> will. If
>>> there are acts of which God did not have foreknowledge of, then
>>> God is not
>>> omniscient. If there are acts of which God is not in control of
>>> or the
>>> determiner of but are somehow left to chance, then God is not
>>> omnipotent.
>>> Therefore, the appearance of freewill is an illusion/delusion if
>>> God is
>>> omnipotent and omniscient.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 10. *Any* event/act that occurs in the universe was either
>>> predetermined at the moment of creation or not. If God is
>>> omnipotent and
>>> omniscient then God intentionally and knowingly created/
>>> determined the
>>> universe to be the way it now exists. If there is something, like a
>>> human act which is not predetermined, but has been somehow left
>>> to chance
>>> (an unknown outcome), then God is not omniscient. If there is real
>>> choice, and thus an indeterminate gap in God's knowledge, there
>>> is not
>>> predetermination, and thus God is not omniscient. If there was no
>>> gap in
>>> God's knowledge/foreknowledge at the moment of creation, then
>>> *all *events
>>> and acts are therefore knowingly and intentionally predetermined
>>> by God.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 11. Therefore all acts of humankind including mental acts which
>>> include the processes of choice are predetermined and occur
>>> regardless of
>>> the appearance of choice/freewill, if God is omnipotent and
>>> omniscient.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 12. If God is omnibenevolent (*perfectly* good), then every
>>> act that
>>> God has control over or determines would be not be evil or lead
>>> to evil.
>>> God would not knowingly and/or intentionally perform or allow the
>>> performance of any act that was evil or lead to evil. If God is
>>> omnibenevolent (*perfectly* good), and thus totally and completely
>>> abhorrent to and completely opposed to evil, and this omnipotent,
>>> omniscient
>>> God was in complete control and the determiner of everything that
>>> happens in
>>> the universe from the moment of creation, then *nothing* evil
>>> would or
>>> could ever exist in the universe.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 13. Since God is omnipotent, omniscient, and thus is in a
>>> position to
>>> unequivocally impose its omnibenevolence, then *evil does not and
>>> cannot
>>> not exist*. Hence, *no* acts by humankind are evil.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 14. The rape and murder of a five year old child by a not
>>> mentally
>>> retarded man is an evil. Such an act has occurred.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 15. Therefore, evil unequivocally exists.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 16. This contradicts the assertion that God is
>>> omnibenevolent. God
>>> has caused or an evil event to occur.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 17. Therefore, it is logically impossible for an omnipotent,
>>> omniscient, omnibenevolent God to exist.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Problem of Evil is an age old dilemma. I make no claim to have
>>> discovered or written anything original. My hope is that I have
>>> described the Problem of Evil in such a clear and explicit manner
>>> so that
>>> all but the linguistically challenged or emotionally paralyzed can
>>> understand it and understand clearly that there cannot be an
>>> omnipotent,
>>> omniscient, omnibenevolent God.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I believe that it is important to write this. The belief in an
>>> omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God is a fundamental tenet
>>> of Islam
>>> and of most Christian sects. On the basis of this tenet people
>>> lives
>>> are controlled, not always to their benefit, and their money
>>> fleeced from
>>> them, especially by Christian sects. Belief in this tenet also
>>> impedes
>>> the recognition and/or finding of real solutions to human and
>>> terrestrial
>>> problems, and thus prolonging the misery caused by these problems.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
>>> *To:* Art Deco <deco at moscow.com>
>>> *Cc:* Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 18, 2011 4:26 PM
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Response to Joe, Donovan [More]
>>>
>>> Wayne,
>>>
>>> It depends entirely on how God knows all things. If God predicts the
>>> future like we do, then his omnipotence might not yield his
>>> knowing all
>>> things -- past, present, and future. There are factors -- chaos
>>> is one --
>>> which might get in the way of his ability to predict. Again, you
>>> have to
>>> keep an open mind about the idea of an omniscient creature knowing
>>> everything there is to know. If the future is unreal in the sense
>>> that it
>>> has yet to come to pass, there is nothing about it to know.
>>>
>>> Maybe there is a sense of omniscience in which God doesn't come
>>> to know
>>> anything any particular way; God simply knows all things. I can
>>> see how one
>>> might want to yearn for a God that knows everything ever was
>>> true, is true,
>>> or will be true. But a God who only knows all that is true is
>>> good enough
>>> for me. Thus, I honestly don't think that theism and omniscience
>>> entails
>>> that God has universal predictability. Nor would I deny that God has
>>> universal predictability.
>>>
>>> But suppose he does have universal predictability? Does that mean
>>> that no
>>> one has free will? You write: "In this context, asserting there is
>>> freewill or real choice by humankind means that the chooser can
>>> choose to do
>>> something not completely determined or predicted by an omnipotent,
>>> omniscient God, an obvious contradiction." Again, why suppose
>>> that the
>>> free act has to be unpredictable? I can predict quite a lot about
>>> your
>>> future behavior. I'm sure you wife can predict even more. It
>>> seems like, the
>>> more one gets to know you the easier it is to predict your future
>>> behavior.
>>> Even if God is just very good at drawing inferences, he's going
>>> to be able
>>> say a lot about what you'll do in the future. But he is better
>>> than anyone
>>> at drawing inferences. Since I don't see how my predictions of
>>> your behavior
>>> undermine your freedom, I'm not sure why God's predictions would
>>> undermine
>>> them. That I predict that you will do A is no assurance that
>>> you're doing A
>>> was not up to you. I don't see the contradiction.
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Art Deco <deco at moscow.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Joe writes:
>>>>
>>>> "First, determinism does not entail predictability." & "Nor does
>>>> predictability ensure determinism."
>>>>
>>>> For ordinary mortals, this is true. Events may be completely
>>>> determined,
>>>> but not enough is known to predict them with 100% accuracy, for
>>>> example, the
>>>> weather.
>>>>
>>>> However, in the context of the Problem of Evil, these claims are
>>>> irrelevant:
>>>>
>>>> An alleged omnipotent, omniscient God is a God that knows
>>>> everything can
>>>> predict with 100% accuracy all outcomes, events, etc. In this
>>>> case 100%
>>>> error free predictability means that everything is determined --
>>>> it is bound
>>>> to happen, it can happen only in the manner ordained and thus
>>>> predicted by
>>>> God, especially in this context where this alleged God knew
>>>> everything that
>>>> would happen henceforth in its creation at the moment of creation
>>>> (foreknowledge).
>>>>
>>>> Similarly, in this context if everything was ordained and thus
>>>> determined
>>>> by an omnipotent, omniscient God, then that God can predict
>>>> everything with
>>>> 100%, error free accuracy.
>>>>
>>>> Simply, in the context of an alleged omnipotent, omniscient God,
>>>> "determined" entails "predictability" by that God and
>>>> "predictability"
>>>> entails "determined."
>>>>
>>>> In this context, asserting there is freewill or real choice by
>>>> humankind
>>>> means that the chooser can choose to do something not completely
>>>> determined
>>>> or predicted by an omnipotent, omniscient God, an obvious
>>>> contradiction.
>>>>
>>>> What others may have said, including big name philosophers, at
>>>> this point
>>>> is irrelevant to the simple arguments presented. If you want to
>>>> refute
>>>> these argument, then do it by showing a mistake in logical
>>>> structure, not by
>>>> changing the context of the assumptions and assertions or by
>>>> changing the
>>>> meaning of words that I have taken pains from the beginning to
>>>> make clear.
>>>>
>>>> You offer the following:
>>>>
>>>> "C) God created the world fully determined and humans have free
>>>> will.
>>>> Further the world is chaotic and God is unable to predict the
>>>> outcome of
>>>> the world in complete detail even though it is fully determined.
>>>> You are
>>>> likely correct that on this model you'd have to reject God's
>>>> omniscience but
>>>> there would be an explanation of his "ignorance," e.g. the
>>>> chaotic nature of
>>>> the universe.
>>>>
>>>> D) God created an undetermined world and humans have free will.
>>>> Since the
>>>> world is undetermined he is unable to predict the outcome of the
>>>> world in
>>>> complete detail. In this option God is still omniscient since
>>>> the future is
>>>> unsettled; God still knows all that is true it is just that
>>>> propositions
>>>> about the future are neither true nor false, so he doesn't know
>>>> those."
>>>>
>>>> Earlier, to forestall these kinds of claims, I clearly defined
>>>> the "omniscience" of the alleged God: *"At all times past,
>>>> present and
>>>> future God knows everything, past, present, and future."* There
>>>> are no
>>>> gaps in God's foreknowledge or knowledge. I believe that this
>>>> is the
>>>> traditional definition used by philosophers and theologians who
>>>> have
>>>> discussed this subject. Regardless, this is how I have used the
>>>> concept of
>>>> omniscience in this discussion. If you want to show that my
>>>> analysis is in
>>>> error, please use words in the same way I have.
>>>>
>>>> In the context of the Problem of Evil including an omnipotent,
>>>> omniscient
>>>> God the creator.
>>>>
>>>> In C above "God is unable to predict the outcome of the world in
>>>> complete detail even though it is fully determined" means that
>>>> God's
>>>> foreknowledge at the moment of creation is denied. As you point
>>>> out, this
>>>> is contradictory to God's omniscience since foreknowledge is
>>>> part of the
>>>> definition/conditions of omniscience.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In D above "God still knows all that is true it is just that
>>>> propositions about the future are neither true nor false, *so he
>>>> doesn't
>>>> know those*" acknowledges that there is something that an
>>>> omniscient God
>>>> with complete foreknowledge doesn't know. This is a
>>>> contradiction. If the
>>>> future is undetermined and unsettled, God is not omniscient.
>>>>
>>>> D is curious in other ways. It assumes that an omniscient God's
>>>> knowledge is propositional. There can be many ways of knowing
>>>> which are not
>>>> propositional. For example, my dog Star knows that when I say
>>>> "Come and get
>>>> your vitamin" that if she comes I will give her a dog vitamin.
>>>> It would be
>>>> hard to argue that Star's knowledge is propositional in the same
>>>> way human
>>>> knowledge is propositional since so far as is known, Dogs only
>>>> have phatic
>>>> language communication skills. Knowing how to dunk a basketball
>>>> is not
>>>> propositional knowledge. An omnipotent, omniscient God cannot
>>>> be restricted
>>>> to one way of knowing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is no doubt that the concept of free will can have many
>>>> meanings.
>>>> Some of these meanings may (and have) lead to meaningful
>>>> research about how
>>>> much fee choice really exists.
>>>>
>>>> However, again if you want to refute the arguments in my
>>>> analysis of the
>>>> Problem of Evil, then do it by showing a mistake in their
>>>> logical structure,
>>>> not by changing the context of the assertions or by changing the
>>>> meaning of
>>>> words that I have taken pains from the beginning to make clear,
>>>> and meanings
>>>> which as far as I know are the traditional meanings used by
>>>> philosophers and
>>>> theologians. Such tactics are like someone changing the
>>>> definition of a
>>>> topological space in order to refute a theorem in topology.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wayne A. Fox
>>>> 1009 Karen Lane
>>>> PO Box 9421
>>>> Moscow, ID 83843
>>>>
>>>> waf at moscow.com
>>>> 208 882-7975
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
>>>> *To:* Art Deco <deco at moscow.com>
>>>> *Cc:* Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 18, 2011 7:41 AM
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Response to Joe, Donovan [More]
>>>>
>>>> A few points.
>>>>
>>>> First, determinism does not entail predictability. Chaotic
>>>> systems, for
>>>> instance, may be determined yet not predictable. Nor does
>>>> predictability
>>>> ensure determinism. I make predictions all the time about a
>>>> variety of human
>>>> behavior and so do you. That in and of itself does not mean that
>>>> human
>>>> behavior is determined. So you can't use "determinism" and
>>>> "predictability"
>>>> as if they mean the same thing. They don't. One is a
>>>> metaphysical thesis
>>>> about the structure of the universe; the other is an
>>>> epistemological thesis.
>>>> See this article for support of these claims:
>>>>
>>>> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/
>>>>
>>>> Second, you can't just assume that free will is incompatible with
>>>> determinism. Some people (Descartes, Leibniz, Hume, Kant, G.E.
>>>> Moore,
>>>> myself) believe that determinism is compatible with free will,
>>>> that the very
>>>> same event may be determined from the beginning of time and
>>>> still (if it is
>>>> an act) be free. You yourself pointed out the pitfall of
>>>> thinking of free
>>>> will as indeterminism, for undetermined events are random and
>>>> randomness is
>>>> not the same as freedom. Well if randomness can't get you free
>>>> will, it is
>>>> hard to see how the opposite -- determinism -- can take free
>>>> will away.
>>>>
>>>> My own view is that the thesis of determinism as absolutely
>>>> nothing to do
>>>> with free will. If we think the two are linked it is pretty easy
>>>> to show
>>>> that no one has free will. Too easy. This was the point of my
>>>> thought
>>>> experiment. We need a better conception of "free will" than the
>>>> one we get
>>>> by contrasting it with determinism. That in a nutshell is what
>>>> most of my
>>>> own philosophical research is concerned with doing: providing us
>>>> with a
>>>> better understanding of what it means for a human act -- or any
>>>> act -- to be
>>>> free.
>>>>
>>>> Putting these two points together, I think that there are more
>>>> options
>>>> available than the two that you sketch out below. Here are some
>>>> of the other
>>>> options:
>>>>
>>>> C) God created the world fully determined and humans have free
>>>> will.
>>>> Further the world is chaotic and God is unable to predict the
>>>> outcome of the
>>>> world in complete detail even though it is fully determined. You
>>>> are likely
>>>> correct that on this model you'd have to reject God's
>>>> omniscience but there
>>>> would be an explanation of his "ignorance," e.g. the chaotic
>>>> nature of the
>>>> universe.
>>>>
>>>> D) God created an undetermined world and humans have free will.
>>>> Since the
>>>> world is undetermined he is unable to predict the outcome of the
>>>> world in
>>>> complete detail. In this option God is still omniscient since
>>>> the future is
>>>> unsettled; God still knows all that is true it is just that
>>>> propositions
>>>> about the future are neither true nor false, so he doesn't know
>>>> those.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, this is not really a response to your argument. At
>>>> most, there
>>>> will just be a few more options to consider -- maybe just one
>>>> more, in fact
>>>> -- and likely you'll find that model unsatisfactory in light of
>>>> the evil in
>>>> the world and God's supposed attributes. I don't suppose to have
>>>> a solution
>>>> to the problem of evil! I just think that fully stating the
>>>> argument is
>>>> difficult and that it isn't obvious that God's existence is
>>>> inconsistent
>>>> with the existence of evil.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Art Deco <deco at moscow.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Joe,
>>>>>
>>>>> I just can't follow your argument, nor your thought experiment. I
>>>>> suspect that we are using different definitions of "free will" and
>>>>> "determinism."
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's start with the word "determinism" in an effort to clarify.
>>>>> [Note: "God" in the following means "alleged God."]
>>>>>
>>>>> Suppose you had a perfect die throwing machine, a machine that
>>>>> tossed a
>>>>> die in a completely controlled micro-environment. This machine
>>>>> was set to
>>>>> hold and to toss the die in the exact same way each time.
>>>>> Barring some
>>>>> anomaly in what in what are called for the sake of expediency
>>>>> the "laws of
>>>>> nature" -- in this case physics -- the result will always be
>>>>> the same. The
>>>>> outcome is "determined." Given the constancy of the "laws of
>>>>> physics", no
>>>>> other outcome is possible. Betting on the outcome would be a
>>>>> sure bet; a
>>>>> bet that is never lost. The outcome is complete predictable
>>>>> without a
>>>>> chance of error.
>>>>>
>>>>> If, however, the "laws of physics" were not constant, but were
>>>>> subject
>>>>> to an occasional anomaly, then there would be some randomness,
>>>>> and there
>>>>> would not be any sure bet. There would be errors in predictions.
>>>>>
>>>>> In short, I am using the word "determined" to mean always
>>>>> completely
>>>>> predicable without error or chance of error.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Given the above, the issue of determinism and freewill in the
>>>>> context of
>>>>> the Problem of Evil can then be characterized thusly:
>>>>>
>>>>> A. Did God when creating the universe, plan it down to the
>>>>> very last
>>>>> detail and then executed that plan exactly? Did God impose
>>>>> upon all things
>>>>> a "law of all things" from the beginning such that everything
>>>>> in the
>>>>> universe always acts like the die in the perfect die throwing
>>>>> machine -- all
>>>>> outcomes, events, etc were/are completely predictable (known)
>>>>> to God. If
>>>>> so, that is what I mean by "determinism" in the context of the
>>>>> Problem of
>>>>> Evil. There is no outcome that God, being omniscient, did not
>>>>> know
>>>>> (predict) would happen. There is no randomness in the system.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or
>>>>>
>>>>> B. Did God when creating the universe leave an element of
>>>>> randomness
>>>>> in its plan of the universe, and did not attend to every last
>>>>> detail,
>>>>> randomness say in the form of human "freewill," so that not all
>>>>> outcomes
>>>>> were completely predictable (known) by God.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the later, then there are random events of which God would
>>>>> not have
>>>>> been cognizant of at the moment of creation or before they
>>>>> occurred, and
>>>>> therefore God would not be omniscient at the moment of creation
>>>>> or at
>>>>> anytime before any of these random events occur.
>>>>>
>>>>> Simpler:
>>>>>
>>>>> A. Did God plan everything, and being omnipotent, everything
>>>>> happens
>>>>> that way, and being omniscient, God knows exactly what will
>>>>> happen, and
>>>>> hence everything is determined (predictable by God), despite
>>>>> appearances?
>>>>>
>>>>> or
>>>>>
>>>>> B. Did God plan almost everything, but left an element of
>>>>> chance/randomness in its plan in the form of the freewill of
>>>>> humankind, and
>>>>> thus God could not predict everything from the moment of
>>>>> creation, and
>>>>> hence God not omniscient?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Simpler yet (like the old Clairol ads):
>>>>>
>>>>> A. Does He know
>>>>>
>>>>> or
>>>>>
>>>>> B. doesn't He know?
>>>>>
>>>>> If A, then all is determined, regardless of the conscious
>>>>> feeling of
>>>>> choice experienced by humankind.
>>>>>
>>>>> If B, then freewill exists, but God is not omniscient having
>>>>> chosen to
>>>>> give up complete predictability.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What is very important in discussing this issue is to distinguish
>>>>> between there being actual freewill and there being the
>>>>> appearance of free
>>>>> will. There is little doubt that many people believe they are
>>>>> exercising
>>>>> free will. That belief may or may not be true. The more we
>>>>> learn about
>>>>> human behavior, the more determined (and predictable) it becomes.
>>>>>
>>>>> God, being omnipotent, could certainly create a universe where
>>>>> people
>>>>> believe they were exercising free choice, but in fact, their
>>>>> actions were
>>>>> completely determined (predictable) by God at the point of
>>>>> creation.
>>>>>
>>>>> w.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> =======================================================
>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> =======================================================
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> =======================================================
>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>> http://www.fsr.net
>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
>>
>>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/
> 20110521/144142cb/attachment.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
> End of Vision2020 Digest, Vol 59, Issue 172
> *******************************************
>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list