<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
<STRONG>I would think that there is no new mall since construction is way down, the economy is in the toilet and many business did not survive the Bush crash pre Obama.</STRONG><BR>
<STRONG></STRONG> <BR>
<STRONG>Ellen A. Roskovich</STRONG><BR>
<BR> <BR>
> Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 08:31:20 -0700<BR>> From: thansen@moscow.com<BR>> To: rhayes@frontier.com<BR>> CC: vision2020@moscow.com<BR>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] city council<BR>> <BR>> Very well said, Roger.<BR>> <BR>> Not only that, but it was Steed who stated that if Moscow did not provide<BR>> watter rights, Hawkins Companies would obtain water rights from Pullman<BR>> and proceed with building the mega-mall anyway.<BR>> <BR>> Question. Mr. Steed: Where's the mall? Or did the people of Moscow, and<BR>> a few legislators in Boise, get in the way?<BR>> <BR>> Hmmm.<BR>> <BR>> I'll have to share some Walter Steed sound-bites from previous city<BR>> council sessions, as well as other venues, once I return to Vandalville.<BR>> <BR>> Tom Hansen<BR>> Astoria, Oregon<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> On Sat, May 21, 2011 8:17 am, roger hayes wrote:<BR>> > 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, vision2020-request@moscow.com wrote:<BR>> ><BR>> >> Send Vision2020 mailing list submissions to<BR>> >> vision2020@moscow.com<BR>> >><BR>> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<BR>> >> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/vision2020<BR>> >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<BR>> >> vision2020-request@moscow.com<BR>> >><BR>> >> You can reach the person managing the list at<BR>> >> vision2020-owner@moscow.com<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" <thansen@moscow.com><BR>> >> Subject: [Vision2020] You've Come a Long Way, Baby<BR>> >> To: "Moscow Vision 2020" <vision2020@moscow.com><BR>> >> Message-ID: <70f17c64b1d156e43f19f2b8e43aad09.squirrel@secure.fsr.com><BR>> >> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1<BR>> >><BR>> >> http://www.tomandrodna.com/Astoria_051911/Astoria_052011_02.JPG<BR>> >><BR>> >> http://www.tomandrodna.com/Astoria_051911/Astoria_052011_03.JPG<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 <donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com><BR>> >> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Who Else Feels that . . .<BR>> >> To: Moscow Vision 2020 <vision2020@moscow.com>, Sam Scripter<BR>> >> <MoscowSam@charter.net><BR>> >> Message-ID: <437740.61711.qm@web38107.mail.mud.yahoo.com><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 <MoscowSam@charter.net> wrote:<BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>> >> From: Sam Scripter <MoscowSam@charter.net><BR>> >> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Who Else Feels that . . .<BR>> >> To: "Moscow Vision 2020" <vision2020@moscow.com><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>> >> <donaldrose@cpcinternet.com> 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: vision2020-bounces@moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-<BR>> >> bounces@moscow.com]<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" <thansen@moscow.com> 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>> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbkRjjTQjtw<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>> >>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? http://www.fsr.net<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>> >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? http://www.fsr.net<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>> >> http://www.fsr.net<BR>> >> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<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>> >> ? ? ? ? ? mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>> >> =======================================================<BR>> >> -------------- next part --------------<BR>> >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<BR>> >> URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/<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 <philosopher.joe@gmail.com><BR>> >> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Response to Joe, Donovan [More]<BR>> >> To: Art Deco <deco@moscow.com><BR>> >> Cc: Vision 2020 <vision2020@moscow.com><BR>> >> Message-ID: <BANLkTikGDod91FHubjeMsBq0Xb5Gdrkx3w@mail.gmail.com><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 <deco@moscow.com> 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 <philosopher.joe@gmail.com><BR>> >>> *To:* Art Deco <deco@moscow.com><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 <deco@moscow.com> 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 <philosopher.joe@gmail.com><BR>> >>>> *To:* Art Deco <deco@moscow.com><BR>> >>>> *Cc:* Vision 2020 <vision2020@moscow.com><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 <deco@moscow.com> 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>> >>>>> waf@moscow.com<BR>> >>>>> 208 882-7975<BR>> >>>>><BR>> >>>>> ----- Original Message -----<BR>> >>>>> *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe@gmail.com><BR>> >>>>> *To:* Art Deco <deco@moscow.com><BR>> >>>>> *Cc:* Vision 2020 <vision2020@moscow.com><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>> >>>>> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/<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 <deco@moscow.com> 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>> >>>> http://www.fsr.net<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>> >>> http://www.fsr.net<BR>> >>> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>> >>> =======================================================<BR>> >>><BR>> >>><BR>> >> -------------- next part --------------<BR>> >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<BR>> >> URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/<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>> >> http://www.fsr.net<BR>> >> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<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>> > http://www.fsr.net<BR>> > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>> > =======================================================<BR>> ><BR>> <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>> http://www.fsr.net <BR>> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>> =======================================================<BR> </body>
</html>