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.<br>
<br>I can help you get started. Here is one of your claims: "<font size="2"><span style="font-family:Verdana"><span></span>If <b>all</b> acts of humankind are predetermined including
mental acts, then there can be no freedom of choice or so-called free
will.<span>"</span></span></font> 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.<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Art Deco <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div><font size="2">
<div><font size="2">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. </font></div>
<div> </div>
<div>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 <b>knowingly</b>
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
<b>everything</b>.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Please read 6 - 11 below for an expanded description of why this is
so.</div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">We are stuck here:</font></div></font></div></div><div class="im">
<div><font size="2"><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:blue"></span> </font></div>
<div>
<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> </span>Such tactics
are like someone changing the definition of a topological space in order to
refute a theorem in topology,"</span></p></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
</div><div><font size="2">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.</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">Other Vision 2020 readers can see and decide for themselves
what has occurred in this dialog, if they are interested.</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">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.</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">w.</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<blockquote style="border-left:#000000 2px solid;padding-left:5px;padding-right:0px;margin-left:5px;margin-right:0px"><div class="im">
<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><div><div></div><div class="h5"><div style="font:10pt arial"><b>Sent:</b> Friday, May 20, 2011 6:07 AM</div>
<div style="font:10pt arial"><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Vision2020] Response to
Joe, Donovan [More]</div>
<div><br></div>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.<br><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 6:38 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">
<table style="border-collapse:collapse" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<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"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">[Sigh!]</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">When I wrote:</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0.5in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:blue"></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> </span>Such tactics are like
someone changing the definition of a topological space in order to
refute a theorem in topology,"</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">I thought that this request would be
respected.<span> </span>Unfortunately this didn't
happen.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">Joe wrote:</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></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."</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></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.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></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:</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></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> </span>"<b>At all times past, present and future God
knows everything, past, present, and future."<span> </span>There
are no gaps in God's foreknowledge or knowledge.</b><span>
</span>I believe that this is the traditional definition used by
philosophers and theologians who have discussed this
subject.<span> </span>Regardless, this is how I have used the
concept of omniscience in this discussion.<span> </span>If you
want to show that my analysis is in error, please use words in the
same way I have."</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">Perhaps, that was not clear
enough.<span> </span>Perhaps some people, like some of the
servers at Subway, do not know what "all" or "everything"
means.<span> </span>Hence, if Joe is confused, others may be
also.<span> </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> </span>At all times henceforth the word "God"
means "alleged God."</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></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>
</span>I believe that these definitions of terms are not new, but
reflect their traditional usage in philosophical and theological dogma
and debate.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">A.<span>
</span><b>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> </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> </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> </span>In short, God can do anything not
linguistically contradictory.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">B.<span>
</span><b>God is omniscient </b>(all knowing)<b> </b>means at a
minimum at all times past, present and future God knows everything,
past, present, and future.<span> </span>There are no gaps in
God's foreknowledge or knowledge.<span> </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>
</span>There are no errors in God's knowledge.<span> </span>God
can and does predict everything exactly and correctly and in the
correct sequence.<span> </span>Given any conditions/states, God
knows what will result from such conditions/states.<span>
</span>God's knowledge extends to every conceivable thing in the
universe including physical events and mental events.<span>
</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> </span>God
knows exactly in all cases what is good and what is evil.<span>
</span>God knows, and has always known everything.<span>
</span>There isn't anything that God does not know.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">C.<span>
</span><b>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> </span>[Note the use of the words "anything
evil."<span> </span>Only one instance of something evil is
needed to refute a claim of omnibenevolence.]</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:Verdana">The Problem of Evil:</span></b><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">1.<span>
</span>There is a God.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">2.<span>
</span>God is omnipotent.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">3.<span>
</span>God is omniscient.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">4.<span>
</span>God is omnibenevolent.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">5.<span>
</span>God knowingly and intentionally planned and created the
universe and everything in it.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">6.<span>
</span>Since God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, and
created the universe, then God is the cause/determiner of
<b>everything</b> that happens as a result of its all-knowing and
intentional act of creation from the moment of that
creation.<span> </span>God was/is/will be in complete control
and the determiner of <b>everything</b> at all times.<span>
</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.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">7.<span>
</span>Since God is omniscient, God had exact foreknowledge of
<b>everything</b> that would occur/be determined as a result of its
omnipotent act of creation.<span> </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.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">8.<span>
</span>Since God is omnipotent and omniscient, <b>everything</b> that
happens in the universe was knowingly and intentionally predetermined
from the moment of creation.<span> </span>Therefore, all future
acts of humankind, including all mental acts such as the processes of
choosing, were predetermined at moment of creation.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">9.<span>
</span>If <b>all</b> acts of humankind are predetermined including
mental acts, then there can be no freedom of choice or so-called free
will.<span> </span>If there are acts of which God did not have
foreknowledge of, then God is not omniscient.<span> </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> </span>Therefore, the appearance of freewill
is an illusion/delusion if God is omnipotent and
omniscient.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">10.<span>
</span><b>Any</b> event/act that occurs in the universe was either
predetermined at the moment of creation or not.<span> </span>If
God is omnipotent and omniscient then God intentionally and knowingly
created/determined the universe to be the way it now
exists.<span> </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> </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>all </b>events and acts are therefore
knowingly and intentionally predetermined by God.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">11.<span>
</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.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">12.<span> </span>If God
is omnibenevolent (<b>perfectly</b> good), then every act that God has
control over or determines would be not be evil or lead to
evil.<span> </span>God would not knowingly and/or intentionally
perform or allow the performance of any act that was evil or lead to
evil.<span> </span>If God is omnibenevolent (<b>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>nothing</b> evil would or could
ever exist in the universe.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">13.<span> </span>Since
God is omnipotent, omniscient, and thus is in a position to
unequivocally impose its omnibenevolence, then <b>evil does not and
cannot not exist</b>.<span> </span>Hence, <b>no</b> acts by
humankind are evil.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">14.<span> </span>The
rape and murder of a five year old child by a not mentally retarded
man is an evil.<span> </span>Such an act has
occurred.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">15.<span>
</span>Therefore, evil unequivocally exists.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">16. <span> </span>This
contradicts the assertion that God is omnibenevolent.<span>
</span>God has caused or an evil event to occur.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">17.<span>
</span>Therefore, it is logically impossible for an omnipotent,
omniscient, omnibenevolent God to exist.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></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> </span>I make no claim to have discovered or
written anything original.<span> </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.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></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> </span>The belief in an omnipotent, omniscient,
omnibenevolent God is a fundamental tenet of Islam and of most
Christian sects.<span> </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>
</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.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p></td></tr></tbody></table>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"><font size="3"></font></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"><font size="3"></font></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"><font size="3"></font></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"><font size="3"></font></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"><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 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" 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">
<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><a href="tel:208%20882-7975" value="+12088827975" target="_blank">208 882-7975</a><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></div><br>=======================================================<br> List
services made available by First Step Internet,<br> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>=======================================================<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></blockquote>
<br>=======================================================<br>
List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
=======================================================<br></blockquote></div><br>