<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19046">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2>But you have to have sympathy for the poor thing. He
acts like he has a severe rectal problem.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>w.</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=rhayes@frontier.com href="mailto:rhayes@frontier.com">roger hayes</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, May 21, 2011 8:17
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [Vision2020] city council</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>And remember Steed met in secret with that mega-mall developer
to <BR>negotiate Moscow supplying city services across the border. This
mall <BR>would have competed directly with taxpaying Moscow businesses.
Who <BR>does he represent anyway? Moscow? I think not. He brings a
history of <BR>arrogance to the office.<BR>Roger Hayes<BR>Moscow<BR>On
May 21, 2011, at 6:10 AM, <A
href="mailto:vision2020-request@moscow.com">vision2020-request@moscow.com</A>
wrote:<BR><BR>> Send Vision2020 mailing list submissions
to<BR>> <A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>><BR>>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web,
visit<BR>> <A
href="http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/vision2020">http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/vision2020</A><BR>>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help'
to<BR>> <A
href="mailto:vision2020-request@moscow.com">vision2020-request@moscow.com</A><BR>><BR>>
You can reach the person managing the list at<BR>>
<A
href="mailto:vision2020-owner@moscow.com">vision2020-owner@moscow.com</A><BR>><BR>>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<BR>>
than "Re: Contents of Vision2020 digest..."<BR>><BR>><BR>> Today's
Topics:<BR>><BR>> 1. You've Come a Long Way, Baby (Tom
Hansen)<BR>> 2. Re: Who Else Feels that . . . (Donovan
Arnold)<BR>> 3. Re: Response to Joe, Donovan [More] (Joe
Campbell)<BR>><BR>><BR>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>><BR>>
Message: 1<BR>> Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 15:56:44 -0700 (PDT)<BR>> From:
"Tom Hansen" <<A
href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com">thansen@moscow.com</A>><BR>> Subject:
[Vision2020] You've Come a Long Way, Baby<BR>> To: "Moscow Vision 2020"
<<A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A>><BR>>
Message-ID: <<A
href="mailto:70f17c64b1d156e43f19f2b8e43aad09.squirrel@secure.fsr.com">70f17c64b1d156e43f19f2b8e43aad09.squirrel@secure.fsr.com</A>><BR>>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1<BR>><BR>> <A
href="http://www.tomandrodna.com/Astoria_051911/Astoria_052011_02.JPG">http://www.tomandrodna.com/Astoria_051911/Astoria_052011_02.JPG</A><BR>><BR>>
<A
href="http://www.tomandrodna.com/Astoria_051911/Astoria_052011_03.JPG">http://www.tomandrodna.com/Astoria_051911/Astoria_052011_03.JPG</A><BR>><BR>>
On the rebound, Moscow.<BR>><BR>> Tom Hansen<BR>> Astoria,
Oregon<BR>><BR>> "The Pessimist complains about the wind, the Optimist
expects it to<BR>> changeand the Realist adjusts his
sails."<BR>><BR>> -
Unknown<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>>
------------------------------<BR>><BR>> Message: 2<BR>> Date: Fri,
20 May 2011 19:47:26 -0700 (PDT)<BR>> From: Donovan Arnold <<A
href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com">donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</A>><BR>>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Who Else Feels that . . .<BR>> To: Moscow Vision
2020 <<A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A>>,
Sam Scripter<BR>> <<A
href="mailto:MoscowSam@charter.net">MoscowSam@charter.net</A>><BR>>
Message-ID: <<A
href="mailto:437740.61711.qm@web38107.mail.mud.yahoo.com">437740.61711.qm@web38107.mail.mud.yahoo.com</A>><BR>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<BR>><BR>> I am
embarrassed for Moscow, truly I am.<BR>> ?<BR>> Donovan
Arnold<BR>><BR>> --- On Fri, 5/20/11, Sam Scripter <<A
href="mailto:MoscowSam@charter.net">MoscowSam@charter.net</A>>
wrote:<BR>><BR>><BR>> From: Sam Scripter <<A
href="mailto:MoscowSam@charter.net">MoscowSam@charter.net</A>><BR>>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Who Else Feels that . . .<BR>> To: "Moscow Vision
2020" <<A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A>><BR>>
Date: Friday, May 20, 2011, 6:20 AM<BR>><BR>><BR>> It was disgusting
to watch that come down in the video of the meeting.<BR>><BR>> Now I
know four individuals not to vote four if they choose to run <BR>>
for re-election.<BR>><BR>> Can someone name here, which council members'
terms expire when?<BR>><BR>> Sam Scripter<BR>><BR>> Joe Campbell
wrote:<BR>> Yes it is hard to say which is more disappointing: Steed's
behavior <BR>> or the fact that the rest of that group let him get
away with it.<BR>><BR>><BR>> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 3:28 PM,
Rosemary Huskey <BR>> <<A
href="mailto:donaldrose@cpcinternet.com">donaldrose@cpcinternet.com</A>>
wrote:<BR>><BR>> Amen. ?In fact, I'll be a blunt (surprising I know).
?He sounded <BR>> like a<BR>> braying southern jackass. The rest
of the Council apparently don't <BR>> mind his<BR>> belligerent,
boorish behavior or they are so intimidated by him <BR>> that
are<BR>> afraid to disagree. ?I've always found that standing up to
bullies <BR>> is a<BR>> pretty effective way to shut them
down.<BR>> Rose<BR>><BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>> From: <A
href="mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com">vision2020-bounces@moscow.com</A>
[mailto:vision2020- <BR>> <A
href="mailto:bounces@moscow.com">bounces@moscow.com</A>]<BR>> On Behalf Of
Joe Campbell<BR>> Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 2:36 PM<BR>> To: Tom
Hansen<BR>> Cc: Jane Kauzlarich; Friends of the Clearwater; Moscow Vision
2020;<BR>> JeanneMcHale; Fritz Knorr; Brett Haverstick; Marilyn Beckett;
Lin <BR>> Laughy;<BR>> Helen Yost; Dinah Zeiger<BR>> Subject:
Re: [Vision2020] Who Else Feels that . . .<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>> I
do!<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>> On May 17, 2011, at 8:16 PM, "Tom Hansen"
<<A href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com">thansen@moscow.com</A>>
wrote:<BR>><BR>><BR>>> Councilman Steed owes Mayor Chaney an
apology for his lack of respect<BR>>> commencing at (or about) the 3:15
mark of . . .<BR>>><BR>>> <A
href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbkRjjTQjtw">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbkRjjTQjtw</A><BR>>><BR>>>
Footnote: I will be posting segments of the May 16th City Council
<BR>>> session<BR>>> over the next few days as I enjoy Astoria,
Oregon's bicentennial<BR>>> celebration. ?I should have the segment
concerning the megaloads <BR>>> uploaded<BR>>> Thursday
night.<BR>>><BR>>> Tom Hansen<BR>>> Moscow,
Idaho<BR>>><BR>>> "The Pessimist complains about the wind, the
Optimist expects it to<BR>>> changeand the Realist adjusts his
sails."<BR>>><BR>>> - Unknown<BR>>><BR>>><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">http://www.fsr.net</A><BR>>> ? ? ? ?
?mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>>>
=======================================================<BR>>><BR>><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">http://www.fsr.net</A><BR>> ? ? ? ?
?mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>>
=======================================================<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><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">http://www.fsr.net</A><BR>>
<A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>>
=======================================================<BR>> -----Inline
Attachment Follows-----<BR>><BR>><BR>>
=======================================================<BR>> List services
made available by First Step Internet,<BR>> serving the communities of the
Palouse since 1994.???<BR>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ???http://www.fsr.net? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ???<BR>> ? ? ? ? ? <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>>
=======================================================<BR>> --------------
next part --------------<BR>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<BR>>
URL: <A
href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/</A>
<BR>> 20110520/a109fcad/attachment-0001.html<BR>><BR>>
------------------------------<BR>><BR>> Message: 3<BR>> Date: Sat,
21 May 2011 06:10:39 -0700<BR>> From: Joe Campbell <<A
href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</A>><BR>>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Response to Joe, Donovan [More]<BR>> To: Art Deco
<<A href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A>><BR>> Cc:
Vision 2020 <<A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A>><BR>>
Message-ID: <<A
href="mailto:BANLkTikGDod91FHubjeMsBq0Xb5Gdrkx3w@mail.gmail.com">BANLkTikGDod91FHubjeMsBq0Xb5Gdrkx3w@mail.gmail.com</A>><BR>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<BR>><BR>> It's not a
proof, sorry. You just keep making the same claim over <BR>> and
over<BR>> again. Maybe it would be clearer that you're not proving this,
just <BR>> making<BR>> the claim, if you wrote out the proof. What
are the premises for the<BR>> conclusion that "If God is omniscient, no one
has free will." Or <BR>> you could<BR>> give a conditional proof:
Suppose, for the sake of argument that <BR>> God is<BR>>
omniscient. Now lay out clearly the steps that get you from this
<BR>> assumption<BR>> to the claim that no one has free will. Along the
way be sure to <BR>> define your<BR>> terms: "Free will" =df.
etc.<BR>><BR>> I can help you get started. Here is one of your claims:
"If *all* <BR>> acts of<BR>> humankind are predetermined including
mental acts, then there can <BR>> be no<BR>> freedom of choice or
so-called free will." Prove that this claim is <BR>> true by<BR>>
conditional proof. I'll grant the assumption that "all acts of <BR>>
humankind are<BR>> predetermined [in the sense that God knows them to be
true]." You <BR>> show how<BR>> the consequence -- "there can be
no freedom of choice or so-called <BR>> free<BR>> will" -- follows
from the assumption. You might think it is <BR>> contained
below<BR>> but it isn't. You just keep repeating the conditional; you have
not<BR>> established it.<BR>><BR>> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 9:28 AM,
Art Deco <<A href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A>>
wrote:<BR>><BR>><BR>>> I am not proving anything about some
alleged God except that as <BR>>> described<BR>>> by some,
such a God is logically impossible. I have taken <BR>>>
traditional<BR>>> definitions and assertions based on those definitions
and shown <BR>>> that they<BR>>> lead to a contradiction --
an impossible state of affairs.<BR>>><BR>>> Your question below
was/is answered by 6 - 11 in last post. I see <BR>>> no
need<BR>>> to repeat it. These sections demonstrate under the
assumptions of<BR>>> omnipotence and omniscience humankind cannot choose
in any manner <BR>>> other than<BR>>> what God
ordained/determined at the moment of creation. There are no<BR>>>
choices that God did not intentionally and *knowingly* determine
<BR>>> from the<BR>>> beginning. Hence, there is no such
thing as free will under the <BR>>> assumption<BR>>> of
God's omnipotence -- all actions of the will and their
<BR>>> consequences<BR>>> where known and determined by God at the
beginning, else it would <BR>>> be false<BR>>> to say God is
omniscient, i.e. God knows *everything*.<BR>>><BR>>> Please read 6
- 11 below for an expanded description of why this <BR>>> is
so.<BR>>><BR>>> We are stuck
here:<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>> "However, again if you want to
refute the arguments in my analysis <BR>>> of the<BR>>>
Problem of Evil, then do it by showing a mistake in their logical
<BR>>> structure,<BR>>> not by changing the context of the
assertions or by changing the <BR>>> meaning of<BR>>> words
that I have taken pains from the beginning to make clear, <BR>>>
and meanings<BR>>> which as far as I know are the traditional meanings
used by <BR>>> philosophers and<BR>>> theologians.
Such tactics are like someone changing the <BR>>> definition of
a<BR>>> topological space in order to refute a theorem in
topology,"<BR>>><BR>>> I have clearly defined what omniscient
means and the implications <BR>>> of this<BR>>> definition;
I believe this definition to be the traditional <BR>>> definition,
and<BR>>> hence I am not interested in pursuing a dialog where someone
keeps <BR>>> trying to<BR>>> change the definition in order
to allow free will, omniscience, <BR>>> etc to be<BR>>>
compatible. This dialog makes me feel like being at Subway when
<BR>>> asked "What<BR>>> do you want on that?" and I reply
"Everything except hot peppers," <BR>>> but the<BR>>> server
continues to ask whether I want each and every particular <BR>>>
possible<BR>>> addition to the sandwich under
construction.<BR>>><BR>>> Other Vision 2020 readers can see and
decide for themselves what has<BR>>> occurred in this dialog, if they
are interested.<BR>>><BR>>> I am more interested in the exposing
the phonies and their <BR>>> motivation in<BR>>> pursuing a
clearly logically impossible definition of some alleged <BR>>> God
than<BR>>> dealing with those that either cannot, do nor wish to
understand <BR>>> or pretend<BR>>> that they have not
understood what I have written.<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>>
w.<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>>
----- Original Message -----<BR>>> *From:* Joe Campbell <<A
href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</A>><BR>>>
*To:* Art Deco <<A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A>><BR>>> *Sent:*
Friday, May 20, 2011 6:07 AM<BR>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Response
to Joe, Donovan [More]<BR>>><BR>>> Let's just stick to one thing
at a time. Let's see if you can <BR>>> prove just<BR>>> one
part of your story: given that God knows everything -- meaning<BR>>>
everything that is true, will be true, or was true -- then no one
<BR>>> has free<BR>>> will. You keep saying it. Prove it. We'll go
from there.<BR>>><BR>>> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Art Deco
<<A href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A>>
wrote:<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>
[Sigh!]<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>> When I
wrote:<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>
"However, again if you want to refute the arguments in my
<BR>>>> analysis of the<BR>>>> Problem of Evil, then do it
by showing a mistake in their logical <BR>>>>
structure,<BR>>>> not by changing the context of the assertions or by
changing the <BR>>>> meaning of<BR>>>> words that I
have taken pains from the beginning to make clear, <BR>>>> and
meanings<BR>>>> which as far as I know are the traditional meanings
used by <BR>>>> philosophers and<BR>>>>
theologians. Such tactics are like someone changing the
<BR>>>> definition of a<BR>>>> topological space in order to
refute a theorem in
topology,"<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>> I
thought that this request would be respected. Unfortunately
this<BR>>>> didn't
happen.<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>> Joe
wrote:<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>> "It
depends entirely on how God knows all things. If God predicts
<BR>>>> the<BR>>>> future like we do, then his omnipotence
might not yield his <BR>>>> knowing all<BR>>>> things
-- past, present, and future. There are factors -- chaos
<BR>>>> is one --<BR>>>> which might get in the way of his
ability to predict. Again, you <BR>>>> have to<BR>>>>
keep an open mind about the idea of an omniscient creature
knowing<BR>>>> everything there is to know. If the future is unreal
in the sense <BR>>>> that it<BR>>>> has yet to come to
pass, there is nothing about it to
know."<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>> This is
again a transparent attempt to bypass what is most likely an<BR>>>>
unpalatable conclusion, namely, if some alleged God is omnipotent
<BR>>>> and<BR>>>> omniscient, then humankind does not have
free will and God is <BR>>>> responsible<BR>>>> for
evil.<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>> In the
last and earlier posts, I defined the way I was using <BR>>>>
omniscience:<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>
"Earlier, to forestall these kinds of claims, I clearly defined
the<BR>>>> "omniscience" of the alleged God: "*At all times
past, present and<BR>>>> future God knows everything, past, present,
and future." There <BR>>>> are no<BR>>>> gaps in
God's foreknowledge or knowledge.* I believe that this
<BR>>>> is the<BR>>>> traditional definition used by
philosophers and theologians who have<BR>>>> discussed this
subject. Regardless, this is how I have used the <BR>>>>
concept<BR>>>> of omniscience in this discussion. If you want
to show that my <BR>>>> analysis<BR>>>> is in error,
please use words in the same way I
have."<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>
Perhaps, that was not clear enough. Perhaps some people, like
<BR>>>> some of<BR>>>> the servers at Subway, do not know
what "all" or "everything" <BR>>>> means.
Hence,<BR>>>> if Joe is confused, others may be also. So I will
draw out some <BR>>>> of the<BR>>>> obvious
conclusions implicit in the definitions I have given so <BR>>>>
that some of<BR>>>> the confusion the words "all" and :everything"
may cause might be <BR>>>> reduced.<BR>>>> At all
times henceforth the word "God" means "alleged
God."<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>> In the
formulation of the Problem of Evil under discussion, key
<BR>>>> terms are<BR>>>> defined as follows. I believe
that these definitions of terms <BR>>>> are not<BR>>>>
new, but reflect their traditional usage in philosophical and
<BR>>>> theological<BR>>>> dogma and
debate.<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>
A. *God is omnipotent* (all powerful) means at a
minimum God can<BR>>>> do/cause/ordain/etc anything (plan, event,
sequence of events, <BR>>>> creative<BR>>>> acts,
etc). For the purposes of human communication God can do
<BR>>>> any set<BR>>>> of events which can be expressed in a
non-contradictory <BR>>>> combination of<BR>>>>
statements. There may be other things God can do which cannot
be<BR>>>> formulated by statements which are outside the realm of
human <BR>>>> communication<BR>>>> or outside the
realm of possible human knowledge, if so, such <BR>>>> powers
are not<BR>>>> discussable. In short, God can do anything not
linguistically<BR>>>>
contradictory.<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>
B. *God is omniscient *(all knowing)* *means at a
minimum at all<BR>>>> times past, present and future God knows
everything, past, <BR>>>> present, and<BR>>>>
future. There are no gaps in God's foreknowledge or
knowledge. <BR>>>> This<BR>>>> knowledge
includes knowledge of the universe as we know and exist <BR>>>>
in it. God<BR>>>> has, and always has had complete knowledge of the
past and <BR>>>> present and has<BR>>>> and always has
had complete foreknowledge. There are no errors <BR>>>>
in God's<BR>>>> knowledge. God can and does predict everything
exactly and <BR>>>> correctly and<BR>>>> in the
correct sequence. Given any conditions/states, God knows
<BR>>>> what<BR>>>> will result from such
conditions/states. God's knowledge extends to<BR>>>> every
conceivable thing in the universe including physical events
<BR>>>> and mental<BR>>>> events. In the case of
mental events, God's knowledge and <BR>>>>
foreknowledge<BR>>>> includes all conscious events and states in all
human beings <BR>>>> including<BR>>>> feelings and
mental acts, which includes all the mental processes <BR>>>> of
choice<BR>>>> made or experienced by human beings. God knows
exactly in all <BR>>>> cases what<BR>>>> is good and
what is evil. God knows, and has always known <BR>>>>
everything. There<BR>>>> isn't anything that God does not
know.<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>
C. *God is Omnibenevolent* means at a minimum that God
is <BR>>>> perfectly<BR>>>> good, abhors and if it
could, would not permit anything evil to <BR>>>>
exist,<BR>>>> including something egregiously evil, to exist, and if
it could, <BR>>>> would not<BR>>>> permit anything
which would cause anything evil to exist. [Note <BR>>>>
the use<BR>>>> of the words "anything evil." Only one instance
of something <BR>>>> evil is<BR>>>> needed to refute a
claim of
omnibenevolence.]<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>
*The Problem of
Evil:*<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>
1. There is a God.<BR>>>><BR>>>>
2. God is omnipotent.<BR>>>><BR>>>>
3. God is omniscient.<BR>>>><BR>>>>
4. God is
omnibenevolent.<BR>>>><BR>>>> 5. God
knowingly and intentionally planned and created the <BR>>>>
universe<BR>>>> and everything in
it.<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>
6. Since God is omnipotent, omniscient, and
omnibenevolent, and<BR>>>> created the universe, then God is the
cause/determiner of <BR>>>> *everything*that happens as a
result of its all-knowing and <BR>>>> intentional act of
creation<BR>>>> from the moment of that creation. God
was/is/will be in complete <BR>>>> control<BR>>>> and
the determiner of *everything* at all times. To assert there
is<BR>>>> something that God is not in complete control of
(something <BR>>>> somehow left to<BR>>>> chance) is
to deny either God's omnipotence and/or
omniscience.<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>
7. Since God is omniscient, God had exact
foreknowledge of *<BR>>>> everything* that would occur/be determined
as a result of its <BR>>>> omnipotent<BR>>>> act of
creation. To say God didn't know exactly to a tee what
would<BR>>>> occur or be determined as a result of his plan of
creation would <BR>>>> be to<BR>>>> contradict God's
omniscience.<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>
8. Since God is omnipotent and omniscient,
*everything* that <BR>>>> happens<BR>>>> in the
universe was knowingly and intentionally predetermined <BR>>>>
from the<BR>>>> moment of creation. Therefore, all future acts
of humankind, <BR>>>> including<BR>>>> all mental acts
such as the processes of choosing, were <BR>>>> predetermined
at<BR>>>> moment of
creation.<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>
9. If *all* acts of humankind are predetermined
including mental<BR>>>> acts, then there can be no freedom of choice
or so-called free <BR>>>> will. If<BR>>>> there
are acts of which God did not have foreknowledge of, then
<BR>>>> God is not<BR>>>> omniscient. If there are
acts of which God is not in control of <BR>>>> or
the<BR>>>> determiner of but are somehow left to chance, then God is
not <BR>>>> omnipotent.<BR>>>> Therefore, the
appearance of freewill is an illusion/delusion if <BR>>>> God
is<BR>>>> omnipotent and
omniscient.<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>
10. *Any* event/act that occurs in the universe was
either<BR>>>> predetermined at the moment of creation or not.
If God is <BR>>>> omnipotent and<BR>>>> omniscient
then God intentionally and knowingly created/ <BR>>>> determined
the<BR>>>> universe to be the way it now exists. If there is
something, like a<BR>>>> human act which is not predetermined, but
has been somehow left <BR>>>> to chance<BR>>>> (an
unknown outcome), then God is not omniscient. If there is
real<BR>>>> choice, and thus an indeterminate gap in God's knowledge,
there <BR>>>> is not<BR>>>> predetermination, and thus
God is not omniscient. If there was no <BR>>>> gap
in<BR>>>> God's knowledge/foreknowledge at the moment of creation,
then <BR>>>> *all *events<BR>>>> and acts are
therefore knowingly and intentionally predetermined <BR>>>> by
God.<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>
11. Therefore all acts of humankind including mental acts
which<BR>>>> include the processes of choice are predetermined and
occur <BR>>>> regardless of<BR>>>> the appearance of
choice/freewill, if God is omnipotent and <BR>>>>
omniscient.<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>
12. If God is omnibenevolent (*perfectly* good), then
every <BR>>>> act that<BR>>>> God has control over or
determines would be not be evil or lead <BR>>>> to
evil.<BR>>>> God would not knowingly and/or intentionally perform or
allow the<BR>>>> performance of any act that was evil or lead to
evil. If God is<BR>>>> omnibenevolent (*perfectly* good), and
thus totally and completely<BR>>>> abhorrent to and completely
opposed to evil, and this omnipotent, <BR>>>>
omniscient<BR>>>> God was in complete control and the determiner of
everything that <BR>>>> happens in<BR>>>> the universe
from the moment of creation, then *nothing* evil <BR>>>> would
or<BR>>>> could ever exist in the
universe.<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>
13. Since God is omnipotent, omniscient, and thus is in
a <BR>>>> position to<BR>>>> unequivocally impose its
omnibenevolence, then *evil does not and <BR>>>>
cannot<BR>>>> not exist*. Hence, *no* acts by humankind are
evil.<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>
14. The rape and murder of a five year old child by a
not <BR>>>> mentally<BR>>>> retarded man is an
evil. Such an act has
occurred.<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>
15. Therefore, evil unequivocally
exists.<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>
16. This contradicts the assertion that God is
<BR>>>> omnibenevolent. God<BR>>>> has caused or an
evil event to
occur.<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>
17. Therefore, it is logically impossible for an
omnipotent,<BR>>>> omniscient, omnibenevolent God to
exist.<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>> The
Problem of Evil is an age old dilemma. I make no claim to
have<BR>>>> discovered or written anything original. My hope is
that I have<BR>>>> described the Problem of Evil in such a clear and
explicit manner <BR>>>> so that<BR>>>> all but the
linguistically challenged or emotionally paralyzed can<BR>>>>
understand it and understand clearly that there cannot be an
<BR>>>> omnipotent,<BR>>>> omniscient, omnibenevolent
God.<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>> I believe
that it is important to write this. The belief in an<BR>>>>
omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God is a fundamental tenet
<BR>>>> of Islam<BR>>>> and of most Christian
sects. On the basis of this tenet people <BR>>>>
lives<BR>>>> are controlled, not always to their benefit, and their
money <BR>>>> fleeced from<BR>>>> them, especially by
Christian sects. Belief in this tenet also <BR>>>>
impedes<BR>>>> the recognition and/or finding of real solutions to
human and <BR>>>> terrestrial<BR>>>> problems, and
thus prolonging the misery caused by these
problems.<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>
----- Original Message -----<BR>>>> *From:* Joe Campbell <<A
href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</A>><BR>>>>
*To:* Art Deco <<A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A>><BR>>>> *Cc:*
Vision 2020 <<A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A>><BR>>>>
*Sent:* Wednesday, May 18, 2011 4:26 PM<BR>>>> *Subject:* Re:
[Vision2020] Response to Joe, Donovan [More]<BR>>>><BR>>>>
Wayne,<BR>>>><BR>>>> It depends entirely on how God knows
all things. If God predicts the<BR>>>> future like we do, then his
omnipotence might not yield his <BR>>>> knowing
all<BR>>>> things -- past, present, and future. There are factors --
chaos <BR>>>> is one --<BR>>>> which might get in the
way of his ability to predict. Again, you <BR>>>> have
to<BR>>>> keep an open mind about the idea of an omniscient creature
knowing<BR>>>> everything there is to know. If the future is unreal
in the sense <BR>>>> that it<BR>>>> 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
<BR>>>> to know<BR>>>> anything any particular way; God
simply knows all things. I can <BR>>>> see how
one<BR>>>> might want to yearn for a God that knows everything ever
was <BR>>>> true, is true,<BR>>>> or will be true. But
a God who only knows all that is true is <BR>>>> good
enough<BR>>>> for me. Thus, I honestly don't think that theism and
omniscience <BR>>>> entails<BR>>>> that God has
universal predictability. Nor would I deny that God has<BR>>>>
universal predictability.<BR>>>><BR>>>> But suppose he does
have universal predictability? Does that mean <BR>>>> that
no<BR>>>> one has free will? You write: "In this context, asserting
there is<BR>>>> freewill or real choice by humankind means that the
chooser can <BR>>>> choose to do<BR>>>> something not
completely determined or predicted by an omnipotent,<BR>>>>
omniscient God, an obvious contradiction." Again, why suppose
<BR>>>> that the<BR>>>> free act has to be unpredictable? I
can predict quite a lot about <BR>>>> your<BR>>>>
future behavior. I'm sure you wife can predict even more. It
<BR>>>> seems like, the<BR>>>> more one gets to know you the
easier it is to predict your future <BR>>>>
behavior.<BR>>>> Even if God is just very good at drawing inferences,
he's going <BR>>>> to be able<BR>>>> say a lot about
what you'll do in the future. But he is better <BR>>>> than
anyone<BR>>>> at drawing inferences. Since I don't see how my
predictions of <BR>>>> your behavior<BR>>>> undermine
your freedom, I'm not sure why God's predictions would <BR>>>>
undermine<BR>>>> them. That I predict that you will do A is no
assurance that <BR>>>> you're doing A<BR>>>> was not
up to you. I don't see the contradiction.<BR>>>><BR>>>> On
Wed, May 18, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Art Deco <<A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A>>
wrote:<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>> Joe
writes:<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> "First, determinism does not
entail predictability." & "Nor does<BR>>>>> predictability
ensure determinism."<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> For ordinary
mortals, this is true. Events may be completely
<BR>>>>> determined,<BR>>>>> but not enough is known
to predict them with 100% accuracy, for <BR>>>>> example,
the<BR>>>>> weather.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>>
However, in the context of the Problem of Evil, these claims
are<BR>>>>> irrelevant:<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> An
alleged omnipotent, omniscient God is a God that knows
<BR>>>>> everything can<BR>>>>> predict with 100%
accuracy all outcomes, events, etc. In this <BR>>>>> case
100%<BR>>>>> error free predictability means that everything is
determined -- <BR>>>>> it is bound<BR>>>>> to
happen, it can happen only in the manner ordained and thus
<BR>>>>> predicted by<BR>>>>> God, especially in this
context where this alleged God knew <BR>>>>> everything
that<BR>>>>> would happen henceforth in its creation at the moment
of creation<BR>>>>>
(foreknowledge).<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> Similarly, in this
context if everything was ordained and thus <BR>>>>>
determined<BR>>>>> by an omnipotent, omniscient God, then that God
can predict <BR>>>>> everything with<BR>>>>>
100%, error free accuracy.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> Simply, in
the context of an alleged omnipotent, omniscient God,<BR>>>>>
"determined" entails "predictability" by that God and
<BR>>>>> "predictability"<BR>>>>> entails
"determined."<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> In this context,
asserting there is freewill or real choice by <BR>>>>>
humankind<BR>>>>> means that the chooser can choose to do
something not completely <BR>>>>>
determined<BR>>>>> or predicted by an omnipotent, omniscient God,
an obvious <BR>>>>>
contradiction.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> What others may have
said, including big name philosophers, at <BR>>>>> this
point<BR>>>>> is irrelevant to the simple arguments
presented. If you want to <BR>>>>>
refute<BR>>>>> these argument, then do it by showing a mistake in
logical <BR>>>>> structure, not by<BR>>>>>
changing the context of the assumptions and assertions or by
<BR>>>>> changing the<BR>>>>> meaning of words that I
have taken pains from the beginning to <BR>>>>> make
clear.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> You offer the
following:<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> "C) God created the world
fully determined and humans have free <BR>>>>>
will.<BR>>>>> Further the world is chaotic and God is unable to
predict the <BR>>>>> outcome of<BR>>>>> the
world in complete detail even though it is fully determined.
<BR>>>>> You are<BR>>>>> likely correct that on this
model you'd have to reject God's <BR>>>>> omniscience
but<BR>>>>> there would be an explanation of his "ignorance," e.g.
the <BR>>>>> chaotic nature of<BR>>>>> the
universe.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> D) God created an
undetermined world and humans have free will. <BR>>>>> Since
the<BR>>>>> world is undetermined he is unable to predict the
outcome of the <BR>>>>> world in<BR>>>>>
complete detail. In this option God is still omniscient since
<BR>>>>> the future is<BR>>>>> unsettled; God still
knows all that is true it is just that <BR>>>>>
propositions<BR>>>>> about the future are neither true nor false,
so he doesn't know <BR>>>>>
those."<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> Earlier, to forestall these
kinds of claims, I clearly defined<BR>>>>> the "omniscience" of
the alleged God: *"At all times past, <BR>>>>> present
and<BR>>>>> future God knows everything, past, present, and
future."* There <BR>>>>> are no<BR>>>>>
gaps in God's foreknowledge or knowledge. I believe that this
<BR>>>>> is the<BR>>>>> traditional definition used by
philosophers and theologians who <BR>>>>>
have<BR>>>>> discussed this subject. Regardless, this is how
I have used the <BR>>>>> concept of<BR>>>>>
omniscience in this discussion. If you want to show that my
<BR>>>>> analysis is in<BR>>>>> error, please use
words in the same way I have.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> In the
context of the Problem of Evil including an omnipotent,
<BR>>>>> omniscient<BR>>>>> God the
creator.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> In C above "God is
unable to predict the outcome of the world in<BR>>>>> complete
detail even though it is fully determined" means that
<BR>>>>> God's<BR>>>>> foreknowledge at the moment of
creation is denied. As you point <BR>>>>> out,
this<BR>>>>> is contradictory to God's omniscience since
foreknowledge is <BR>>>>> part of the<BR>>>>>
definition/conditions of
omniscience.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>> In D
above "God still knows all that is true it is just that<BR>>>>>
propositions about the future are neither true nor false, *so he
<BR>>>>> doesn't<BR>>>>> know those*" acknowledges
that there is something that an <BR>>>>> omniscient
God<BR>>>>> with complete foreknowledge doesn't know. This
is a <BR>>>>> contradiction. If
the<BR>>>>> future is undetermined and unsettled, God is not
omniscient.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> D is curious in other
ways. It assumes that an omniscient God's<BR>>>>> knowledge
is propositional. There can be many ways of knowing
<BR>>>>> which are not<BR>>>>> propositional.
For example, my dog Star knows that when I say <BR>>>>>
"Come and get<BR>>>>> your vitamin" that if she comes I will give
her a dog vitamin. <BR>>>>> It would
be<BR>>>>> hard to argue that Star's knowledge is propositional in
the same <BR>>>>> way human<BR>>>>> knowledge is
propositional since so far as is known, Dogs only <BR>>>>>
have phatic<BR>>>>> language communication skills. Knowing
how to dunk a basketball <BR>>>>> is not<BR>>>>>
propositional knowledge. An omnipotent, omniscient God cannot
<BR>>>>> be restricted<BR>>>>> to one way of
knowing.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>> There is
no doubt that the concept of free will can have many
<BR>>>>> meanings.<BR>>>>> Some of these meanings may
(and have) lead to meaningful <BR>>>>> research about
how<BR>>>>> much fee choice really
exists.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> However, again if you want to
refute the arguments in my <BR>>>>> analysis of
the<BR>>>>> Problem of Evil, then do it by showing a mistake in
their <BR>>>>> logical structure,<BR>>>>> not by
changing the context of the assertions or by changing the
<BR>>>>> meaning of<BR>>>>> words that I have taken
pains from the beginning to make clear, <BR>>>>> and
meanings<BR>>>>> which as far as I know are the traditional
meanings used by <BR>>>>> philosophers
and<BR>>>>> theologians. Such tactics are like someone
changing the <BR>>>>> definition of a<BR>>>>>
topological space in order to refute a theorem in
topology.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>> Wayne A.
Fox<BR>>>>> 1009 Karen Lane<BR>>>>> PO Box
9421<BR>>>>> Moscow, ID
83843<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> <A
href="mailto:waf@moscow.com">waf@moscow.com</A><BR>>>>> 208
882-7975<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> ----- Original Message
-----<BR>>>>> *From:* Joe Campbell <<A
href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</A>><BR>>>>>
*To:* Art Deco <<A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A>><BR>>>>>
*Cc:* Vision 2020 <<A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A>><BR>>>>>
*Sent:* Wednesday, May 18, 2011 7:41 AM<BR>>>>> *Subject:* Re:
[Vision2020] Response to Joe, Donovan
[More]<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> A few
points.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> First, determinism does not
entail predictability. Chaotic <BR>>>>> systems,
for<BR>>>>> instance, may be determined yet not predictable. Nor
does <BR>>>>> predictability<BR>>>>> ensure
determinism. I make predictions all the time about a
<BR>>>>> variety of human<BR>>>>> behavior and so do
you. That in and of itself does not mean that <BR>>>>>
human<BR>>>>> behavior is determined. So you can't use
"determinism" and <BR>>>>>
"predictability"<BR>>>>> as if they mean the same thing. They
don't. One is a <BR>>>>> metaphysical
thesis<BR>>>>> about the structure of the universe; the other is
an <BR>>>>> epistemological thesis.<BR>>>>> See
this article for support of these
claims:<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> <A
href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/">http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/</A><BR>>>>><BR>>>>>
Second, you can't just assume that free will is incompatible
with<BR>>>>> determinism. Some people (Descartes, Leibniz, Hume,
Kant, G.E. <BR>>>>> Moore,<BR>>>>> myself)
believe that determinism is compatible with free will,
<BR>>>>> that the very<BR>>>>> same event may be
determined from the beginning of time and <BR>>>>> still (if
it is<BR>>>>> an act) be free. You yourself pointed out the
pitfall of <BR>>>>> thinking of free<BR>>>>>
will as indeterminism, for undetermined events are random and
<BR>>>>> randomness is<BR>>>>> not the same as
freedom. Well if randomness can't get you free <BR>>>>>
will, it is<BR>>>>> hard to see how the opposite -- determinism --
can take free <BR>>>>> will
away.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> My own view is that the thesis
of determinism as absolutely <BR>>>>> nothing to
do<BR>>>>> with free will. If we think the two are linked it is
pretty easy <BR>>>>> to show<BR>>>>> that no one
has free will. Too easy. This was the point of my <BR>>>>>
thought<BR>>>>> experiment. We need a better conception of "free
will" than the <BR>>>>> one we get<BR>>>>> by
contrasting it with determinism. That in a nutshell is what
<BR>>>>> most of my<BR>>>>> own philosophical research
is concerned with doing: providing us <BR>>>>> with
a<BR>>>>> better understanding of what it means for a human act --
or any <BR>>>>> act -- to be<BR>>>>>
free.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> Putting these two points
together, I think that there are more <BR>>>>>
options<BR>>>>> available than the two that you sketch out below.
Here are some <BR>>>>> of the other<BR>>>>>
options:<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> C) God created the world
fully determined and humans have free <BR>>>>>
will.<BR>>>>> Further the world is chaotic and God is unable to
predict the <BR>>>>> outcome of the<BR>>>>>
world in complete detail even though it is fully determined. You
<BR>>>>> are likely<BR>>>>> correct that on this model
you'd have to reject God's <BR>>>>> omniscience but
there<BR>>>>> would be an explanation of his "ignorance," e.g. the
chaotic <BR>>>>> nature of the<BR>>>>>
universe.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> D) God created an
undetermined world and humans have free will. <BR>>>>> Since
the<BR>>>>> world is undetermined he is unable to predict the
outcome of the <BR>>>>> world in<BR>>>>>
complete detail. In this option God is still omniscient since
<BR>>>>> the future is<BR>>>>> unsettled; God still
knows all that is true it is just that <BR>>>>>
propositions<BR>>>>> about the future are neither true nor false,
so he doesn't know <BR>>>>>
those.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> Of course, this is not really a
response to your argument. At <BR>>>>> most,
there<BR>>>>> will just be a few more options to consider -- maybe
just one <BR>>>>> more, in fact<BR>>>>> -- and
likely you'll find that model unsatisfactory in light of
<BR>>>>> the evil in<BR>>>>> the world and God's
supposed attributes. I don't suppose to have <BR>>>>> a
solution<BR>>>>> to the problem of evil! I just think that fully
stating the <BR>>>>> argument is<BR>>>>>
difficult and that it isn't obvious that God's existence is
<BR>>>>> inconsistent<BR>>>>> with the existence of
evil.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 5:12 PM,
Art Deco <<A href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A>>
wrote:<BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>>>
Joe,<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> I just can't follow your
argument, nor your thought experiment. I<BR>>>>>> suspect
that we are using different definitions of "free will"
and<BR>>>>>>
"determinism."<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> Let's start
with the word "determinism" in an effort to clarify.<BR>>>>>>
[Note: "God" in the following means "alleged
God."]<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> Suppose you had a
perfect die throwing machine, a machine that <BR>>>>>>
tossed a<BR>>>>>> die in a completely controlled
micro-environment. This machine <BR>>>>>> was set
to<BR>>>>>> hold and to toss the die in the exact same way each
time. <BR>>>>>> Barring
some<BR>>>>>> anomaly in what in what are called for the sake
of expediency <BR>>>>>> the "laws
of<BR>>>>>> nature" -- in this case physics -- the result will
always be <BR>>>>>> the same.
The<BR>>>>>> outcome is "determined." Given the constancy
of the "laws of <BR>>>>>> physics",
no<BR>>>>>> other outcome is possible. Betting on the
outcome would be a <BR>>>>>> sure bet;
a<BR>>>>>> bet that is never lost. The outcome is
complete predictable <BR>>>>>> without
a<BR>>>>>> chance of
error.<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> If, however, the "laws
of physics" were not constant, but were <BR>>>>>>
subject<BR>>>>>> to an occasional anomaly, then there would be
some randomness, <BR>>>>>> and
there<BR>>>>>> would not be any sure bet. There would be
errors in predictions.<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> In
short, I am using the word "determined" to mean always
<BR>>>>>> completely<BR>>>>>> predicable without
error or chance of
error.<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>>
Given the above, the issue of determinism and freewill in the
<BR>>>>>> context of<BR>>>>>> the Problem of
Evil can then be characterized
thusly:<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> A.
Did God when creating the universe, plan it down to the
<BR>>>>>> very last<BR>>>>>> detail and then
executed that plan exactly? Did God impose
<BR>>>>>> upon all things<BR>>>>>> a "law of all
things" from the beginning such that everything <BR>>>>>>
in the<BR>>>>>> universe always acts like the die in the
perfect die throwing <BR>>>>>> machine --
all<BR>>>>>> outcomes, events, etc were/are completely
predictable (known) <BR>>>>>> to God.
If<BR>>>>>> so, that is what I mean by "determinism" in the
context of the <BR>>>>>> Problem
of<BR>>>>>> Evil. There is no outcome that God, being
omniscient, did not <BR>>>>>>
know<BR>>>>>> (predict) would happen. There is no
randomness in the system.<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>>
Or<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> B. Did
God when creating the universe leave an element of
<BR>>>>>> randomness<BR>>>>>> in its plan of the
universe, and did not attend to every last <BR>>>>>>
detail,<BR>>>>>> randomness say in the form of human
"freewill," so that not all <BR>>>>>>
outcomes<BR>>>>>> were completely predictable (known) by
God.<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> If the later, then there
are random events of which God would <BR>>>>>> not
have<BR>>>>>> been cognizant of at the moment of creation or
before they <BR>>>>>> occurred,
and<BR>>>>>> therefore God would not be omniscient at the
moment of creation <BR>>>>>> or
at<BR>>>>>> anytime before any of these random events
occur.<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>>
Simpler:<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> A.
Did God plan everything, and being omnipotent, everything
<BR>>>>>> happens<BR>>>>>> that way, and being
omniscient, God knows exactly what will <BR>>>>>> happen,
and<BR>>>>>> hence everything is determined (predictable by
God), despite <BR>>>>>>
appearances?<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>>
or<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> B. Did
God plan almost everything, but left an element of<BR>>>>>>
chance/randomness in its plan in the form of the freewill of
<BR>>>>>> humankind, and<BR>>>>>> thus God could
not predict everything from the moment of <BR>>>>>>
creation, and<BR>>>>>> hence God not
omniscient?<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>>
Simpler yet (like the old Clairol
ads):<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> A.
Does He know<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>>
or<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> B.
doesn't He know?<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> If A, then
all is determined, regardless of the conscious <BR>>>>>>
feeling of<BR>>>>>> choice experienced by
humankind.<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> If B, then freewill
exists, but God is not omniscient having <BR>>>>>> chosen
to<BR>>>>>> give up complete
predictability.<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>>
What is very important in discussing this issue is to
distinguish<BR>>>>>> between there being actual freewill and
there being the <BR>>>>>> appearance of
free<BR>>>>>> will. There is little doubt that many
people believe they are <BR>>>>>>
exercising<BR>>>>>> free will. That belief may or may not
be true. The more we <BR>>>>>> learn
about<BR>>>>>> human behavior, the more determined (and
predictable) it becomes.<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> God,
being omnipotent, could certainly create a universe where
<BR>>>>>> people<BR>>>>>> believe they were
exercising free choice, but in fact, their <BR>>>>>>
actions were<BR>>>>>> completely determined (predictable)
by God at the point of <BR>>>>>>
creation.<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>>
w.<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>><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">http://www.fsr.net</A><BR>>>>
<A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>>>>
=======================================================<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>><BR>>><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">http://www.fsr.net</A><BR>>>
<A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>>>
=======================================================<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>
-------------- next part --------------<BR>> An HTML attachment was
scrubbed...<BR>> URL: <A
href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/</A>
<BR>> 20110521/144142cb/attachment.html<BR>><BR>>
------------------------------<BR>><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">http://www.fsr.net</A><BR>>
<A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>>
=======================================================<BR>><BR>> End of
Vision2020 Digest, Vol 59, Issue 172<BR>>
*******************************************<BR>><BR><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">http://www.fsr.net</A>
<BR> <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>=======================================================<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>