<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19046">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2>
<TABLE
style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse; mso-yfti-tbllook: 480; mso-padding-alt: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt"
class=MsoTableGrid border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0>
<TBODY>
<TR style="mso-yfti-irow: 0; mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes">
<TD
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; WIDTH: 7.65in; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; PADDING-TOP: 0in"
vAlign=top width=734>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">[Sigh!]<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">When I wrote:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; COLOR: blue"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; COLOR: blue">"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.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Such tactics are
like someone changing the definition of a topological space in order to
refute a theorem in topology,"<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">I thought that this request would be
respected.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Unfortunately this
didn't happen.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">Joe wrote:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; COLOR: blue">"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."<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">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.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">In the last and earlier posts, I defined the
way I was using omniscience:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; COLOR: blue">"Earlier, to forestall these
kinds of claims, I clearly defined the "omniscience" of the alleged
God:<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>"<B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">At all times past, present and future
God knows everything, past, present, and future."<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>There are no gaps in God's
foreknowledge or knowledge.</B><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>I believe that this is the traditional definition used by
philosophers and theologians who have discussed this subject.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Regardless, this is how I have
used the concept of omniscience in this discussion.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>If you want to show that my
analysis is in error, please use words in the same way I
have."<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">Perhaps, that was not clear enough.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Perhaps some people, like some of
the servers at Subway, do not know what "all" or "everything" means.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Hence, if Joe is confused, others
may be also.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>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.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>At
all times henceforth the word "God" means "alleged
God."<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">In the formulation of the Problem of Evil
under discussion, key terms are defined as follows.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I believe that these definitions
of terms are not new, but reflect their traditional usage in philosophical
and theological dogma and debate.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">A.<SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </SPAN><B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">God is omnipotent</B> (all powerful)
means at a minimum God can do/cause/ordain/etc anything (plan, event,
sequence of events, creative acts, etc).<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>For the purposes of human
communication God can do any set of events which can be expressed in a
non-contradictory combination of statements.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>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.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>In short, God can do anything not linguistically
contradictory.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">B.<SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </SPAN><B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">God is omniscient </B>(all knowing)<B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"> </B>means at a minimum at all times
past, present and future God knows everything, past, present, and
future.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>There are no gaps in
God's foreknowledge or knowledge.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>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.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>There are no errors in God's
knowledge.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>God can and does
predict everything exactly and correctly and in the correct sequence.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Given any conditions/states, God
knows what will result from such conditions/states.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>God's knowledge extends to every
conceivable thing in the universe including physical events and mental
events.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>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.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>God knows exactly in
all cases what is good and what is evil.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>God knows, and has always known
everything.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>There isn't
anything that God does not know.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">C.<SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </SPAN><B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">God is Omnibenevolent</B> 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.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>[Note
the use of the words "anything evil."<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Only one instance of something
evil is needed to refute a claim of
omnibenevolence.]<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">The Problem of Evil:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">1.<SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </SPAN>There is a
God.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">2.<SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </SPAN>God is
omnipotent.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">3.<SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </SPAN>God is
omniscient.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">4.<SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </SPAN>God is
omnibenevolent.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">5.<SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </SPAN>God knowingly and
intentionally planned and created the universe and everything in
it.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">6.<SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </SPAN>Since God is
omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, and created the universe, then
God is the cause/determiner of <B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">everything</B> that happens as a
result of its all-knowing and intentional act of creation from the moment
of that creation.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>God
was/is/will be in complete control and the determiner of <B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">everything</B> at all times.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>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.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">7.<SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </SPAN>Since God is
omniscient, God had exact foreknowledge of <B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">everything</B> that would occur/be
determined as a result of its omnipotent act of creation.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>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.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">8.<SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </SPAN>Since God is
omnipotent and omniscient, <B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">everything</B> that happens in the
universe was knowingly and intentionally predetermined from the moment of
creation.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Therefore, all
future acts of humankind, including all mental acts such as the processes
of choosing, were predetermined at moment of
creation.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">9.<SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </SPAN>If <B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">all</B> acts of humankind are
predetermined including mental acts, then there can be no freedom of
choice or so-called free will.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>If there are acts of which God did not have foreknowledge of, then
God is not omniscient.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>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.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Therefore, the appearance of
freewill is an illusion/delusion if God is omnipotent and
omniscient.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">10.<SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </SPAN><B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">Any</B> event/act that occurs in the
universe was either predetermined at the moment of creation or not.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>If God is omnipotent and
omniscient then God intentionally and knowingly created/determined the
universe to be the way it now exists.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>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.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>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 <B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">all </B>events and acts are therefore
knowingly and intentionally predetermined by God.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">11.<SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </SPAN>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.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">12.<SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </SPAN>If God is
omnibenevolent (<B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">perfectly</B>
good), then every act that God has control over or determines would be not
be evil or lead to evil.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>God
would not knowingly and/or intentionally perform or allow the performance
of any act that was evil or lead to evil.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>If God is omnibenevolent (<B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">perfectly</B> 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
<B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">nothing</B> evil would or could
ever exist in the universe.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">13.<SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </SPAN>Since God is
omnipotent, omniscient, and thus is in a position to unequivocally impose
its omnibenevolence, then <B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">evil
does not and cannot not exist</B>.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>Hence, <B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">no</B> acts by
humankind are evil.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">14.<SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </SPAN>The rape and murder of
a five year old child by a not mentally retarded man is an evil.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Such an act has
occurred.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">15.<SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </SPAN>Therefore, evil
unequivocally exists.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">16. <SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </SPAN>This contradicts the
assertion that God is omnibenevolent.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>God has caused or an evil event to
occur.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">17.<SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </SPAN>Therefore, it is
logically impossible for an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God to
exist.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">The Problem of Evil is an age old
dilemma.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I make no claim to
have discovered or written anything original.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>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.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">I believe that it is important to write
this.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The belief in an
omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God is a fundamental tenet of Islam
and of most Christian sects.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>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.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>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.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p><FONT size=3> </FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p><FONT size=3> </FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p><FONT size=3> </FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p><FONT
size=3> </FONT></o:p></SPAN></P></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=philosopher.joe@gmail.com href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">Joe
Campbell</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=deco@moscow.com
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art Deco</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision 2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, May 18, 2011 4:26
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Response to
Joe, Donovan [More]</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Wayne,<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>But suppose he does have universal predictability? Does
that mean that no one has free will? You write:<FONT size=2><FONT size=2> "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.</FONT></FONT>" 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.<BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Art Deco <SPAN
dir=ltr><<A href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A>></SPAN>
wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV bgcolor="#ffffff">
<DIV><FONT size=2>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Joe writes:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2>"First, determinism does not entail
predictability." & "Nor does predictability ensure
determinism."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>However, in the context of the Problem of Evil, these
claims are irrelevant:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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). </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Simply, in the context of an alleged omnipotent,
omniscient God, "determined" entails "predictability" by that God and
"predictability" entails "determined."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>You offer the following:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2>"C) God created the world fully determined
and humans have free will. Further the world is chaotic and <FONT
size=3><FONT color=#000000><SPAN><FONT color=#0000ff size=2>God is unable to
predict the outcome of the world in complete detail even though it is fully
determined.</FONT> </SPAN></FONT></FONT>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.<BR><BR>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."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Earlier, to forestall these kinds of claims, I
clearly defined the "omniscience" of the alleged God: <B>"At all
times past, present and future God knows everything, past, present, and
future."</B><SPAN> 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.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>In the context of the Problem of Evil including an
omnipotent, omniscient God the creator.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>In C above <FONT color=#0000ff> "<FONT
size=3><SPAN><FONT size=2>God is unable to predict the outcome of the world
in complete detail even though it is fully determined" <FONT
color=#000000>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.</FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT color=#000000
size=2><SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><BR> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>In D above <FONT color=#0000ff>"God still knows all that
is true it is just that propositions about the future are neither true nor
false, <B>so he doesn't know those</B>" </FONT><FONT
color=#000000>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.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR>Wayne A. Fox<BR>1009 Karen Lane<BR>PO Box 9421<BR>Moscow, ID
83843</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><A href="mailto:waf@moscow.com" target=_blank>waf@moscow.com</A><BR>208
882-7975<BR></DIV></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4"><B>From:</B> <A
title=philosopher.joe@gmail.com href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com"
target=_blank>Joe Campbell</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=deco@moscow.com
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com" target=_blank>Art Deco</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" target=_blank>Vision 2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, May 18, 2011 7:41
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Response to
Joe, Donovan [More]</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>A few points. <BR><BR>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:<BR><BR><A
href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/"
target=_blank>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/</A><BR><BR>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.
<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>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:<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Art Deco <SPAN
dir=ltr><<A href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"
target=_blank>deco@moscow.com</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV bgcolor="#ffffff">
<DIV><FONT size=2>Joe,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>I just can't follow your argument, nor your thought
experiment. I suspect that we are using different definitions of
"free will" and "determinism."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Let's start with the word "determinism" in an effort
to clarify. [Note: "God" in the following means "alleged
God."]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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. </FONT><FONT size=2>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. </FONT><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>In short, I am using the word "determined" to mean
always completely predicable without error or chance of
error.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Given the above, the issue of determinism and freewill
in the context of the Problem of Evil can then be characterized
thusly:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Or</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Simpler: </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>or </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Simpler yet (like the old Clairol ads):</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>A. Does He know</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>or </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>B. doesn't He know?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>If A, then all is determined, regardless of the
conscious feeling of choice experienced by humankind.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>If B, then freewill exists, but God is not omniscient
having chosen to give up complete predictability.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>w.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>