<!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"></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Donovan writes:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2>"Believing in God is not logical unless you have
had a personal experience to demonstrate otherwise."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Here are the names of some people who, like you, have had
a personal experience with God:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Joseph Smith </FONT><A
href="http://newsroom.lds.org/article/joseph-smith-papers-unprecedented-access-early-revelations"><FONT
size=2>http://newsroom.lds.org/article/joseph-smith-papers-unprecedented-access-early-revelations</FONT></A></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Mohammed </FONT><A
href="http://www.the-prophet-muhammad.net/biographies/revelation.html"><FONT
size=2>http://www.the-prophet-muhammad.net/biographies/revelation.html</FONT></A></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Deanna Laney </FONT><A
href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/god-told-me-to-kill-boys-says-mother-558706.html"><FONT
size=2>http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/god-told-me-to-kill-boys-says-mother-558706.html</FONT></A></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Hans Missal </FONT><A
href="http://www.clickorlando.com/news/9009375/detail.html"><FONT
size=2>http://www.clickorlando.com/news/9009375/detail.html</FONT></A></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Do you see a problem here?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>The first two, claiming a personal relation with God, each
started what they claimed, and many believe, is the only "true" religion.
Unfortunately, the LDS faith and Islam are not only very different from each
other, but logically inconsistent with each other.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>The next two jewels killed because they claimed God in a
personal relationship with them, ordered them to.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>How could it be determined whose personal messages from God
are the true ones? There are hundreds of thousands of people who claim a
personal relationship with some alleged God, and who claim to receive
messages in some way from their alleged God. Unfortunately, these many of
messages appear to be at odds or logically inconsistent with each
other.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>These discrepancies open up two possible
explanations.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Case 1. There is a God who interfaces with
humankind.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Then: God is either confused and hasn't got its
facts straight, or God is having fun by intentionally misleading people and
watching the results.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Case 2. There is a God but this God doesn't give a rat's
ass about humankind and doesn't communicate with them, or there is no God as
presently conceived.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Then: Personal messages from this God are
hallucinations, although those who experience them believe they are real.
The hallucinations are the result of religious fantasy, probably as a
defense mechanism, gone awry, some neural trauma, the ingestion of certain drugs
or substances, and/or some other natural cause.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>
<DIV><FONT size=2>So much for personal experience as an argument for the
existence of some God.</FONT></DIV></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Donovan further writes:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2>"That is why you have to have faith to believe
in Him."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Having only faith or believing on the basis of faith alone
means not having or lacking evidence. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Faith, in this context, because there is no evidence, or what
is called evidence, is contradictory, means the belief in assertions of
extremely low probability. Then it would just as logical to believe in any
consistent set of assertions of extremely low probability as it would be to
believe in the elements/objects of faith. A God who has created this
situation is a God who has created a paradise for con artists. "Trust me
folks, this is the truth." The problem obviously is that the folks saying
this are making assertions of extremely low probability, and the
assertions from different folks are different from and not
logically consistent with the assertions of others.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Donovan then offers the Argument from First Cause and
Pascal's Wager. These were debunked long ago. Google.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>However, assume there is some kind of creator, call it
God. How can any traits of such a God be claimed and verified? How
are knowledge claims about this God established as true? There are
millions of conflicting knowledge claims about some alleged God and no way to
resolve them -- a giant guessing game. If this God gave a rip and
could do something about it, why doesn't it?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>But if it makes you feel good to believe in some alleged God,
dream on. But please don't try to regulate my or other's life because of
your fantasies.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>w.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<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=donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com
href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com">Donovan Arnold</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision 2020</A> ; <A title=deco@moscow.com
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art Deco</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, May 20, 2011 2:17 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Response to
Joe, Donovan [More]</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top>
<DIV>Wayne,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Believing in God is not logical unless you have had a personal
experience to demonstrate otherwise. That is why you have to have faith
to believe in Him. If there was indisputable evidence that God existed
we would not need faith to put our trust in Him. If you pray to God, He
will reveal Himself to you. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>On the other side of your argument, it is equally just as illogical
to believe that there is no God as well, however. As "energy cannot be
created or destroyed" according to the laws of the Universe. So
something had to be there to create it that was supernatural, that could
defy current laws of physics. If energy could suddenly just be
created and destroyed it would create an unstable Universe, and it would
not have lasted this long. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>If you are looking to do what is logical, it is far more logical to
worship a God that doesn't exist then it would be to not worship a God
that does, those are your two options. You will not be impacted by
a God that doesn't exist that you worship. However, if you refuse to
worship a God that turns out does exist, you could end up in serious
trouble. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Donovan Arnold<BR><BR>--- On <B>Fri, 5/20/11, Art Deco
<I><deco@moscow.com></I></B> wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px"><BR>From:
Art Deco <deco@moscow.com><BR>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Response
to Joe, Donovan [More]<BR>To: "Vision 2020"
<vision2020@moscow.com><BR>Date: Friday, May 20, 2011, 9:28
AM<BR><BR>
<DIV id=yiv2061300006>
<STYLE></STYLE>
<DIV><FONT size=2>
<DIV><FONT size=2>I am not proving anything about some alleged God
except that as described by some, such a God is logically
impossible. I have taken traditional definitions and assertions
based on those definitions and shown that they lead to a contradiction
-- an impossible state of affairs. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Your question below was/is answered by 6 - 11 in last
post. I see no need to repeat it. These
sections demonstrate under the assumptions of omnipotence and
omniscience humankind cannot choose in any manner other than what God
ordained/determined at the moment of creation. There are no
choices that God did not intentionally and <STRONG>knowingly</STRONG>
determine from the beginning. Hence, there is no such thing as
free will under the assumption of God's omnipotence -- all
actions of the will and their consequences where known and determined
by God at the beginning, else it would be false to say God is
omniscient, i.e. God knows <STRONG>everything</STRONG>.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Please read 6 - 11 below for an expanded description of why this
is so.</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>We are stuck here:</FONT></FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; COLOR: blue"></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt" class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; COLOR: blue">"However, again if you want
to refute the arguments in my analysis of the Problem of Evil, then do
it by showing a mistake in their logical structure, not by changing
the context of the assertions or by changing the meaning of words that
I have taken pains from the beginning to make clear, and meanings
which as far as I know are the traditional meanings used by
philosophers and theologians.<SPAN> </SPAN>Such tactics are like
someone changing the definition of a topological space in order to
refute a theorem in topology,"</SPAN></P></DIV></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>I have clearly defined what omniscient means and the
implications of this definition; I believe this
definition to be the traditional definition, and hence I am not
interested in pursuing a dialog where someone keeps trying to
change the definition in order to allow free will, omniscience,
etc to be compatible. This dialog makes me feel like being
at Subway when asked "What do you want on that?" and I reply
"Everything except hot peppers," but the server continues to ask
whether I want each and every particular possible addition to the
sandwich under construction.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Other Vision 2020 readers can see and decide for
themselves what has occurred in this dialog, if they are
interested.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>I am more interested in the exposing the phonies and
their motivation in pursuing a clearly logically
impossible definition of some alleged God than dealing with those
that either cannot, do nor wish to understand or pretend that they
have not understood what I have written.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>w.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4"><B>From:</B> <A
title=philosopher.joe@gmail.com
href="http://us.mc381.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=philosopher.joe@gmail.com"
rel=nofollow target=_blank
ymailto="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">Joe Campbell</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=deco@moscow.com
href="http://us.mc381.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=deco@moscow.com"
rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art
Deco</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, May 20, 2011 6:07
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020]
Response to Joe, Donovan [More]</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Let's just stick to one thing at a time. Let's see if
you can prove just one part of your story: given that God knows
everything -- meaning everything that is true, will be true, or was
true -- then no one has free will. You keep saying it. Prove it.
We'll go from there.<BR><BR>
<DIV class=yiv2061300006gmail_quote>On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 6:38 PM,
Art Deco <SPAN dir=ltr><<A
href="http://us.mc381.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=deco@moscow.com"
rel=nofollow target=_blank
ymailto="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A>></SPAN>
wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=yiv2061300006gmail_quote>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>
<TABLE style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse" border=0 cellSpacing=0
cellPadding=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; WIDTH: 7.65in; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; PADDING-TOP: 0in"
vAlign=top width=734>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"></SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">[Sigh!]</SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"></SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">When I wrote:</SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; COLOR: blue"></SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; COLOR: blue">"However, again if
you want to refute the arguments in my analysis of the
Problem of Evil, then do it by showing a mistake in their
logical structure, not by changing the context of the
assertions or by changing the meaning of words that I have
taken pains from the beginning to make clear, and meanings
which as far as I know are the traditional meanings used by
philosophers and theologians.<SPAN> </SPAN>Such
tactics are like someone changing the definition of a
topological space in order to refute a theorem in
topology,"</SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"></SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">I thought that this request
would be respected.<SPAN> </SPAN>Unfortunately this
didn't happen.</SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"></SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">Joe wrote:</SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"></SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; COLOR: blue">"It depends
entirely on how God knows all things. If God predicts the
future like we do, then his omnipotence might not yield his
knowing all things -- past, present, and future. There are
factors -- chaos is one -- which might get in the way of his
ability to predict. Again, you have to keep an open mind
about the idea of an omniscient creature knowing everything
there is to know. If the future is unreal in the sense that
it has yet to come to pass, there is nothing about it to
know."</SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"></SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">This is again a transparent
attempt to bypass what is most likely an unpalatable
conclusion, namely, if some alleged God is omnipotent and
omniscient, then humankind does not have free will and God
is responsible for evil.</SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"></SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">In the last and earlier posts,
I defined the way I was using omniscience:</SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"></SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; COLOR: blue">"Earlier, to
forestall these kinds of claims, I clearly defined the
"omniscience" of the alleged God:<SPAN> </SPAN>"<B>At
all times past, present and future God knows everything,
past, present, and future."<SPAN> </SPAN>There are no
gaps in God's foreknowledge or knowledge.</B><SPAN>
</SPAN>I believe that this is the traditional definition
used by philosophers and theologians who have discussed this
subject.<SPAN> </SPAN>Regardless, this is how I have
used the concept of omniscience in this
discussion.<SPAN> </SPAN>If you want to show that my
analysis is in error, please use words in the same way I
have."</SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"></SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">Perhaps, that was not clear
enough.<SPAN> </SPAN>Perhaps some people, like some of
the servers at Subway, do not know what "all" or
"everything" means.<SPAN> </SPAN>Hence, if Joe is
confused, others may be also.<SPAN> </SPAN>So I will
draw out some of the obvious conclusions implicit in the
definitions I have given so that some of the confusion the
words "all" and :everything" may cause might be
reduced.<SPAN> </SPAN>At all times henceforth the word
"God" means "alleged God."</SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"></SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">In the formulation of the
Problem of Evil under discussion, key terms are defined as
follows.<SPAN> </SPAN>I believe that these definitions
of terms are not new, but reflect their traditional usage in
philosophical and theological dogma and debate.</SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"></SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">A.<SPAN>
</SPAN><B>God is omnipotent</B> (all powerful) means at a
minimum God can do/cause/ordain/etc anything (plan, event,
sequence of events, creative acts, etc).<SPAN>
</SPAN>For the purposes of human communication God can do
any set of events which can be expressed in a
non-contradictory combination of statements.<SPAN>
</SPAN>There may be other things God can do which cannot be
formulated by statements which are outside the realm of
human communication or outside the realm of possible human
knowledge, if so, such powers are not
discussable.<SPAN> </SPAN>In short, God can do
anything not linguistically contradictory.</SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"></SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">B.<SPAN>
</SPAN><B>God is omniscient </B>(all knowing)<B> </B>means
at a minimum at all times past, present and future God knows
everything, past, present, and future.<SPAN>
</SPAN>There are no gaps in God's foreknowledge or
knowledge.<SPAN> </SPAN>This knowledge includes
knowledge of the universe as we know and exist in it. God
has, and always has had complete knowledge of the past and
present and has and always has had complete
foreknowledge.<SPAN> </SPAN>There are no errors in
God's knowledge.<SPAN> </SPAN>God can and does predict
everything exactly and correctly and in the correct
sequence.<SPAN> </SPAN>Given any conditions/states,
God knows what will result from such
conditions/states.<SPAN> </SPAN>God's knowledge
extends to every conceivable thing in the universe including
physical events and mental events.<SPAN> </SPAN>In the
case of mental events, God's knowledge and foreknowledge
includes all conscious events and states in all human beings
including feelings and mental acts, which includes all the
mental processes of choice made or experienced by human
beings.<SPAN> </SPAN>God knows exactly in all cases
what is good and what is evil.<SPAN> </SPAN>God knows,
and has always known everything.<SPAN> </SPAN>There
isn't anything that God does not know.</SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"></SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">C.<SPAN>
</SPAN><B>God is <SPAN>Omnibenevolent</SPAN></B> means at a
minimum that God is perfectly good, abhors and if it could,
would not permit anything evil to exist, including something
egregiously evil, to exist, and if it could, would not
permit anything which would cause anything evil to
exist.<SPAN> </SPAN>[Note the use of the words
"anything evil."<SPAN> </SPAN>Only one instance of
something evil is needed to refute a claim of
<SPAN>omnibenevolence</SPAN>.]</SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"></SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"></SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">The Problem of
Evil:</SPAN></B><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"></SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"></SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">1.<SPAN>
</SPAN>There is a God.</SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">2.<SPAN>
</SPAN>God is omnipotent.</SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">3.<SPAN>
</SPAN>God is omniscient.</SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">4.<SPAN>
</SPAN>God is omnibenevolent.</SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">5.<SPAN>
</SPAN>God knowingly and intentionally planned and created
the universe and everything in it.</SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"></SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">6.<SPAN>
</SPAN>Since God is omnipotent, omniscient, and
omnibenevolent, and created the universe, then God is the
cause/determiner of <B>everything</B> that happens as a
result of its all-knowing and intentional act of creation
from the moment of that creation.<SPAN> </SPAN>God
was/is/will be in complete control and the determiner of
<B>everything</B> at all times.<SPAN> </SPAN>To assert
there is something that God is not in complete control of
(something somehow left to chance) is to deny either God's
omnipotence and/or omniscience.</SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"></SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">7.<SPAN>
</SPAN>Since God is omniscient, God had exact foreknowledge
of <B>everything</B> that would occur/be determined as a
result of its omnipotent act of creation.<SPAN>
</SPAN>To say God didn't know exactly to a tee what would
occur or be determined as a result of his plan of creation
would be to contradict God's omniscience.</SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"></SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">8.<SPAN>
</SPAN>Since God is omnipotent and omniscient,
<B>everything</B> that happens in the universe was knowingly
and intentionally predetermined from the moment of
creation.<SPAN> </SPAN>Therefore, all future acts of
humankind, including all mental acts such as the processes
of choosing, were predetermined at moment of
creation.</SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"></SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">9.<SPAN>
</SPAN>If <B>all</B> acts of humankind are predetermined
including mental acts, then there can be no freedom of
choice or so-called free will.<SPAN> </SPAN>If there
are acts of which God did not have foreknowledge of, then
God is not omniscient.<SPAN> </SPAN>If there are acts
of which God is not in control of or the determiner of but
are somehow left to chance, then God is not
omnipotent.<SPAN> </SPAN>Therefore, the appearance of
freewill is an illusion/delusion if God is omnipotent and
omniscient.</SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"></SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">10.<SPAN>
</SPAN><B>Any</B> event/act that occurs in the universe was
either predetermined at the moment of creation or
not.<SPAN> </SPAN>If God is omnipotent and omniscient
then God intentionally and knowingly created/determined the
universe to be the way it now exists.<SPAN> </SPAN>If
there is something, like a human act which is not
predetermined, but has been somehow left to chance (an
unknown outcome), then God is not omniscient.<SPAN>
</SPAN>If there is real choice, and thus an indeterminate
gap in God's knowledge, there is not predetermination, and
thus God is not omniscient. If there was no gap in God's
knowledge/foreknowledge at the moment of creation, then
<B>all </B>events and acts are therefore knowingly and
intentionally predetermined by God.</SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"></SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">11.<SPAN>
</SPAN>Therefore all acts of humankind including mental acts
which include the processes of choice are predetermined and
occur regardless of the appearance of choice/freewill, if
God is omnipotent and omniscient.</SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"></SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">12.<SPAN>
</SPAN>If God is omnibenevolent (<B>perfectly</B> good),
then every act that God has control over or determines would
be not be evil or lead to evil.<SPAN> </SPAN>God would
not knowingly and/or intentionally perform or allow the
performance of any act that was evil or lead to
evil.<SPAN> </SPAN>If God is omnibenevolent
(<B>perfectly</B> good), and thus totally and completely
abhorrent to and completely opposed to evil, and this
omnipotent, omniscient God was in complete control and the
determiner of everything that happens in the universe from
the moment of creation, then <B>nothing</B> evil would or
could ever exist in the universe.</SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"></SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">13.<SPAN>
</SPAN>Since God is omnipotent, omniscient, and thus is in a
position to unequivocally impose its omnibenevolence, then
<B>evil does not and cannot not exist</B>.<SPAN>
</SPAN>Hence, <B>no</B> acts by humankind are evil.</SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"></SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">14.<SPAN>
</SPAN>The rape and murder of a five year old child by a not
mentally retarded man is an evil.<SPAN> </SPAN>Such an
act has occurred.</SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"></SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">15.<SPAN>
</SPAN>Therefore, evil unequivocally exists.</SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"></SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">16. <SPAN>
</SPAN>This contradicts the assertion that God is
omnibenevolent.<SPAN> </SPAN>God has caused or an evil
event to occur.</SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"></SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">17.<SPAN>
</SPAN>Therefore, it is logically impossible for an
omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God to exist.</SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"></SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">The Problem of Evil is an age
old dilemma.<SPAN> </SPAN>I make no claim to have
discovered or written anything original.<SPAN>
</SPAN>My hope is that I have described the Problem of Evil
in such a clear and explicit manner so that all but the
linguistically challenged or emotionally paralyzed can
understand it and understand clearly that there cannot be an
omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God.</SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"></SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">I believe that it is important
to write this.<SPAN> </SPAN>The belief in an
omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God is a fundamental
tenet of Islam and of most Christian
sects.<SPAN> </SPAN>On the basis of this tenet
people lives are controlled, not always to their benefit,
and their money fleeced from them, especially by Christian
sects.<SPAN> </SPAN>Belief in this tenet also impedes
the recognition and/or finding of real solutions to human
and terrestrial problems, and thus prolonging the misery
caused by these problems.</SPAN>
<DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"
class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"></SPAN>
<DIV></DIV></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><FONT
size=3></FONT></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><FONT
size=3></FONT></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><FONT
size=3></FONT></SPAN> </P></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=yiv2061300006MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><FONT size=3></FONT></SPAN>
<DIV></DIV></FONT>
<DIV></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4"><B>From:</B> <A
title=philosopher.joe@gmail.com
href="http://us.mc381.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=philosopher.joe@gmail.com"
rel=nofollow target=_blank
ymailto="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">Joe Campbell</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=deco@moscow.com
href="http://us.mc381.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=deco@moscow.com"
rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art
Deco</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A
title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="http://us.mc381.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=vision2020@moscow.com"
rel=nofollow target=_blank
ymailto="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision 2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, May 18, 2011
4:26 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020]
Response to Joe, Donovan [More]</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Wayne,<BR><BR>It depends entirely on how God knows
all things. If God predicts the future like we do, then his
omnipotence might not yield his knowing all things -- past,
present, and future. There are factors -- chaos is one -- which
might get in the way of his ability to predict. Again, you have to
keep an open mind about the idea of an omniscient creature knowing
everything there is to know. If the future is unreal in the sense
that it has yet to come to pass, there is nothing about it to
know.<BR><BR>Maybe there is a sense of omniscience in which God
doesn't come to know anything any particular way; God simply knows
all things. I can see how one might want to yearn for a God that
knows everything ever was true, is true, or will be true. But a
God who only knows all that is true is good enough for me. Thus, I
honestly don't think that theism and omniscience entails that God
has universal predictability. Nor would I deny that God has
universal predictability.<BR><BR>But suppose he does have
universal predictability? Does that mean that no one has free
will? You write:<FONT size=2><FONT size=2> "In this context,
asserting there is freewill or real choice by humankind means that
the chooser can choose to do something not completely determined
or predicted by an omnipotent, omniscient God, an obvious
contradiction.</FONT></FONT>" Again, why suppose that the free act
has to be unpredictable? I can predict quite a lot about your
future behavior. I'm sure you wife can predict even more. It seems
like, the more one gets to know you the easier it is to predict
your future behavior. Even if God is just very good at drawing
inferences, he's going to be able say a lot about what you'll do
in the future. But he is better than anyone at drawing inferences.
Since I don't see how my predictions of your behavior undermine
your freedom, I'm not sure why God's predictions would undermine
them. That I predict that you will do A is no assurance that
you're doing A was not up to you. I don't see the
contradiction.<BR><BR>
<DIV class=yiv2061300006gmail_quote>On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 1:21
PM, Art Deco <SPAN dir=ltr><<A
href="http://us.mc381.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=deco@moscow.com"
rel=nofollow target=_blank
ymailto="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A>></SPAN>
wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=yiv2061300006gmail_quote>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Joe writes:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2>"First, determinism does not
entail predictability." & "Nor does predictability ensure
determinism."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>For ordinary mortals, this is true.
Events may be completely determined, but not enough is known to
predict them with 100% accuracy, for example, the
weather.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>However, in the context of the Problem of
Evil, these claims are irrelevant:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>An alleged omnipotent, omniscient God is a God
that knows everything can predict with 100% accuracy all
outcomes, events, etc. In this case 100% error free
predictability means that everything is determined -- it is
bound to happen, it can happen only in the manner ordained and
thus predicted by God, especially in this context where this
alleged God knew everything that would happen henceforth in its
creation at the moment of creation (foreknowledge).
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Similarly, in this context if everything was
ordained and thus determined by an omnipotent, omniscient God,
then that God can predict everything with 100%, error free
accuracy.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Simply, in the context of an alleged
omnipotent, omniscient God, "determined" entails
"predictability" by that God and "predictability" entails
"determined."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>In this context, asserting there is freewill
or real choice by humankind means that the chooser can choose to
do something not completely determined or predicted by an
omnipotent, omniscient God, an obvious
contradiction.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>What others may have said, including big name
philosophers, at this point is irrelevant to the simple
arguments presented. If you want to refute these argument,
then do it by showing a mistake in logical structure, not by
changing the context of the assumptions and assertions or by
changing the meaning of words that I have taken pains from the
beginning to make clear.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>You offer the following:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2>"C) God created the world fully
determined and humans have free will. Further the world is
chaotic and <FONT size=3><FONT color=#000000><SPAN><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2>God is unable to predict the outcome of the
world in complete detail even though it is fully
determined.</FONT> </SPAN></FONT></FONT>You are likely correct
that on this model you'd have to reject God's omniscience but
there would be an explanation of his "ignorance," e.g. the
chaotic nature of the universe.<BR><BR>D) God created an
undetermined world and humans have free will. Since the world is
undetermined he is unable to predict the outcome of the world in
complete detail. In this option God is still omniscient since
the future is unsettled; God still knows all that is true it is
just that propositions about the future are neither true nor
false, so he doesn't know those."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Earlier, to forestall these kinds of
claims, I clearly defined the "omniscience" of the alleged
God: <B>"At all times past, present and future God knows
everything, past, present, and future."</B><SPAN> There
are no gaps in God's foreknowledge or knowledge. I believe
that this is the traditional definition used by philosophers and
theologians who have discussed this subject. Regardless,
this is how I have used the concept of omniscience in this
discussion. If you want to show that my analysis is in
error, please use words in the same way I
have.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>In the context of the Problem of Evil
including an omnipotent, omniscient God the
creator.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>In C above <FONT
color=#0000ff> "<FONT size=3><SPAN><FONT size=2>God is
unable to predict the outcome of the world in complete detail
even though it is fully determined" <FONT color=#000000>means
that God's foreknowledge at the moment of creation is
denied. As you point out, this is contradictory to God's
omniscience since foreknowledge is part of the
definition/conditions of
omniscience.</FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT color=#000000
size=2><SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><BR> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>In D above <FONT color=#0000ff>"God still
knows all that is true it is just that propositions about the
future are neither true nor false, <B>so he doesn't know
those</B>" </FONT><FONT color=#000000>acknowledges that there is
something that an omniscient God with complete foreknowledge
doesn't know. This is a contradiction. If the future
is undetermined and unsettled, God is not
omniscient.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>D is curious in other ways. It assumes
that an omniscient God's knowledge is propositional. There
can be many ways of knowing which are not propositional.
For example, my dog Star knows that when I say "Come and
get your vitamin" that if she comes I will give her a dog
vitamin. It would be hard to argue that Star's knowledge
is propositional in the same way human knowledge is
propositional since so far as is known, Dogs only have phatic
language communication skills. Knowing how to dunk a
basketball is not propositional knowledge. An omnipotent,
omniscient God cannot be restricted to one way of
knowing. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>There is no doubt that the concept of free will can have
many meanings. Some of these meanings may (and have) lead
to meaningful research about how much fee choice really
exists.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>However, again if you want to refute the arguments in my
analysis of the Problem of Evil, then do it by showing a mistake
in their logical structure, not by changing the context of the
assertions or by changing the meaning of words that I have taken
pains from the beginning to make clear, and meanings which as
far as I know are the traditional meanings used by philosophers
and theologians. Such tactics are like someone changing
the definition of a topological space in order to refute a
theorem in topology.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR>Wayne A. Fox<BR>1009 Karen Lane<BR>PO Box
9421<BR>Moscow, ID 83843</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><A
href="http://us.mc381.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=waf@moscow.com"
rel=nofollow target=_blank
ymailto="mailto:waf@moscow.com">waf@moscow.com</A><BR>208
882-7975<BR></DIV></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
</DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4"><B>From:</B> <A
title=philosopher.joe@gmail.com
href="http://us.mc381.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=philosopher.joe@gmail.com"
rel=nofollow target=_blank
ymailto="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">Joe Campbell</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=deco@moscow.com
href="http://us.mc381.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=deco@moscow.com"
rel=nofollow target=_blank
ymailto="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art Deco</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A
title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="http://us.mc381.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=vision2020@moscow.com"
rel=nofollow target=_blank
ymailto="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision 2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, May 18,
2011 7:41 AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020]
Response to Joe, Donovan [More]</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>A few points. <BR><BR>First, determinism does
not entail predictability. Chaotic systems, for instance, may
be determined yet not predictable. Nor does predictability
ensure determinism. I make predictions all the time about a
variety of human behavior and so do you. That in and of itself
does not mean that human behavior is determined. So you can't
use "determinism" and "predictability" as if they mean the
same thing. They don't. One is a metaphysical thesis about the
structure of the universe; the other is an epistemological
thesis. See this article for support of these
claims:<BR><BR><A
href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/"
rel=nofollow
target=_blank>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/</A><BR><BR>Second,
you can't just assume that free will is incompatible with
determinism. Some people (Descartes, Leibniz, Hume, Kant, G.E.
Moore, myself) believe that determinism is compatible with
free will, that the very same event may be determined from the
beginning of time and still (if it is an act) be free. You
yourself pointed out the pitfall of thinking of free will as
indeterminism, for undetermined events are random and
randomness is not the same as freedom. Well if randomness
can't get you free will, it is hard to see how the opposite --
determinism -- can take free will away. <BR><BR>My own view is
that the thesis of determinism as absolutely nothing to do
with free will. If we think the two are linked it is pretty
easy to show that no one has free will. Too easy. This was the
point of my thought experiment. We need a better conception of
"free will" than the one we get by contrasting it with
determinism. That in a nutshell is what most of my own
philosophical research is concerned with doing: providing us
with a better understanding of what it means for a human act
-- or any act -- to be free.<BR><BR>Putting these two points
together, I think that there are more options available than
the two that you sketch out below. Here are some of the other
options:<BR><BR>C) God created the world fully determined and
humans have free will. Further the world is chaotic and God is
unable to predict the outcome of the world in complete detail
even though it is fully determined. You are likely correct
that on this model you'd have to reject God's omniscience but
there would be an explanation of his "ignorance," e.g. the
chaotic nature of the universe.<BR><BR>D) God created an
undetermined world and humans have free will. Since the world
is undetermined he is unable to predict the outcome of the
world in complete detail. In this option God is still
omniscient since the future is unsettled; God still knows all
that is true it is just that propositions about the future are
neither true nor false, so he doesn't know those.<BR><BR>Of
course, this is not really a response to your argument. At
most, there will just be a few more options to consider --
maybe just one more, in fact -- and likely you'll find that
model unsatisfactory in light of the evil in the world and
God's supposed attributes. I don't suppose to have a solution
to the problem of evil! I just think that fully stating the
argument is difficult and that it isn't obvious that God's
existence is inconsistent with the existence of evil.<BR><BR>
<DIV class=yiv2061300006gmail_quote>On Tue, May 17, 2011 at
5:12 PM, Art Deco <SPAN dir=ltr><<A
href="http://us.mc381.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=deco@moscow.com"
rel=nofollow target=_blank
ymailto="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A>></SPAN>
wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=yiv2061300006gmail_quote>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Joe,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>I just can't follow your argument, nor
your thought experiment. I suspect that we are using
different definitions of "free will" and
"determinism."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Let's start with the word "determinism" in
an effort to clarify. [Note: "God" in the
following means "alleged God."]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Suppose you had a perfect die throwing
machine, a machine that tossed a die in a
completely controlled micro-environment. This machine
was set to hold and to toss the die in the exact same way
each time. </FONT><FONT size=2>Barring some anomaly in
what in what are called for the sake of expediency the
"laws of nature" -- in this case physics -- the result will
always be the same. </FONT><FONT size=2>The outcome is
"determined." Given the constancy of the "laws of
physics", no other outcome is possible. Betting on the
outcome would be a sure bet; a bet that is never lost.
The outcome is complete predictable without a chance of
error.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>If, however, the "laws of physics" were
not constant, but were subject to an occasional anomaly,
then there would be some randomness, and there would not be
any sure bet. There would be errors in
predictions.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>In short, I am using the word "determined"
to mean always completely predicable without error or chance
of error.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Given the above, the issue of determinism
and freewill in the context of the Problem of Evil can then
be characterized thusly:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>A. Did God when
creating the universe, plan it down to the very last detail
and then executed that plan exactly? Did God impose
upon all things a "law of all things" from the beginning
such that everything in the universe always acts like
the die in the perfect die throwing machine -- all outcomes,
events, etc were/are completely predictable (known) to
God. If so, that is what I mean by "determinism" in
the context of the Problem of Evil. There is no
outcome that God, being omniscient, did not know
(predict) would happen. There is no randomness in the
system.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Or</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>B. Did God when
creating the universe leave an element of randomness
in its plan of the universe, and did not
attend to every last detail, randomness say in the form of
human "freewill," so that not all outcomes were completely
predictable (known) by God.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>If the later, then there
are random events of which God would not have been
cognizant of at the moment of creation or before they
occurred, and therefore God would not be omniscient at the
moment of creation or at anytime before any of these random
events occur.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Simpler: </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>A. Did God plan
everything, and being omnipotent, everything happens that
way, and being omniscient, God knows exactly what will
happen, and hence everything is determined (predictable by
God), despite appearances?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>or </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>B. Did God plan almost
everything, but left an element of chance/randomness in its
plan in the form of the freewill of humankind, and thus God
could not predict everything from the moment of creation,
and hence God not omniscient?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Simpler yet (like the old Clairol
ads):</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>A. Does He
know</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>or </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>B. doesn't He
know?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>If A, then all is determined, regardless
of the conscious feeling of choice experienced by
humankind.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>If B, then freewill exists, but God is not
omniscient having chosen to give up complete
predictability.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>What is very important in discussing this
issue is to distinguish between there being actual freewill
and there being the appearance of free will. There is
little doubt that many people believe they are exercising
free will. That belief may or may not be true.
The more we learn about human behavior, the more determined
(and predictable) it becomes.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>God, being omnipotent, could certainly
create a universe where people believe they were exercising
free choice, but in fact, their actions were completely
determined (predictable) by God at the point of
creation. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>w.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV></DIV><BR>=======================================================<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet,<BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.<BR>
<A href="http://www.fsr.net/"
rel=nofollow target=_blank>http://www.fsr.net</A><BR>
mailto:<A
href="http://us.mc381.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Vision2020@moscow.com"
rel=nofollow target=_blank
ymailto="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>=======================================================<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV></DIV><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV></DIV><BR>-----Inline Attachment Follows-----<BR><BR>
<DIV
class=plainMail>=======================================================<BR>List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR>
<A
href="http://www.fsr.net/" target=_blank>http://www.fsr.net</A>
<BR> mailto:<A
href="http://us.mc381.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Vision2020@moscow.com"
ymailto="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>=======================================================</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>