I looked again and I see no proof of this claim: if God is (fully) omniscient, then no one has free will. Just the continual assertion that it is true. Let me help if I can.<br><br>The claim that no one has free will is a modal claim. Given the traditional understanding of "free will," it means "no one is able to do otherwise." That is a modal assertion. From the fact that someone knows that tomorrow X will be the case, it doesn't follow that it can't be otherwise. It merely follows that it won't be otherwise.<br>
<br>So the issue, logically speaking, is how do you derive the modal force -- cannot be otherwise -- given mere knowledge of the future? I know that Obama is president but that doesn't seem to imply that he couldn't be otherwise.<br>
<br>You can look at it any way you want. In a debate as perennial as the one about God's existence, the idiots are not going to line up on one side of debate and the non-idiots on the other.<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Art Deco <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:deco@moscow.com" target="_blank">deco@moscow.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div><font size="2">I did exactly what you asked in the post you responded
to.</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">I am sorry that you are either unwilling or unable to
comprehend it.</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">W.</font></div>
<blockquote style="border-left:#000000 2px solid;padding-left:5px;padding-right:0px;margin-left:5px;margin-right:0px">
<div style="font:10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </div>
<div style="font:10pt arial;background:#e4e4e4"><b>From:</b>
<a title="philosopher.joe@gmail.com" href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" target="_blank">Joe
Campbell</a> </div>
<div style="font:10pt arial"><b>To:</b> <a title="deco@moscow.com" href="mailto:deco@moscow.com" target="_blank">Art Deco</a> </div>
<div style="font:10pt arial"><b>Cc:</b> <a title="vision2020@moscow.com" href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">Vision 2020</a> </div>
<div style="font:10pt arial"><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, May 21, 2011 6:10
AM</div>
<div style="font:10pt arial"><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Vision2020] Response to
Joe, Donovan [More]</div>
<div><br></div>It's not a proof, sorry. You just keep making the same claim
over and over again. Maybe it would be clearer that you're not proving this,
just making the claim, if you wrote out the proof. What are the premises for
the conclusion that "If God is omniscient, no one has free will." Or you could
give a conditional proof: Suppose, for the sake of argument that God is
omniscient. Now lay out clearly the steps that get you from this assumption to
the claim that no one has free will. Along the way be sure to define your
terms: "Free will" =df. etc.<br><br>I can help you get started. Here is one of
your claims: "<font size="2"><span style="font-family:Verdana"><span></span>If
<b>all</b> acts of humankind are predetermined including mental acts, then
there can be no freedom of choice or so-called free
will.<span>"</span></span></font> Prove that this claim is true by conditional
proof. I'll grant the assumption that "all acts of humankind are predetermined
[in the sense that God knows them to be true]." You show how the consequence
-- "there can be no freedom of choice or so-called free will" -- follows from
the assumption. You might think it is contained below but it isn't. You just
keep repeating the conditional; you have not established it.<br><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Art Deco <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:deco@moscow.com" target="_blank">deco@moscow.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="border-left:#ccc 1px solid;margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div><font size="2">
<div><font size="2">I am not proving anything about some alleged God except
that as described by some, such a God is logically impossible. I have
taken traditional definitions and assertions based on those definitions and
shown that they lead to a contradiction -- an impossible state of
affairs. </font></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Your question below was/is answered by 6 - 11 in last post.
I see no need to repeat it. These sections demonstrate under the
assumptions of omnipotence and omniscience humankind cannot choose in any
manner other than what God ordained/determined at the moment of
creation. There are no choices that God did not intentionally and
<b>knowingly</b> determine from the beginning. Hence, there is no such
thing as free will under the assumption of God's omnipotence -- all
actions of the will and their consequences where known and determined by God
at the beginning, else it would be false to say God is omniscient, i.e. God
knows <b>everything</b>.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Please read 6 - 11 below for an expanded description of why this is
so.</div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">We are stuck here:</font></div></font></div></div>
<div>
<div><font size="2"><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:blue"></span></font> </div>
<div>
<p style="margin:0in 0.5in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:blue">"However, again if you want to
refute the arguments in my analysis of the Problem of Evil, then do it by
showing a mistake in their logical structure, not by changing the context of
the assertions or by changing the meaning of words that I have taken pains
from the beginning to make clear, and meanings which as far as I know are
the traditional meanings used by philosophers and theologians.<span>
</span>Such tactics are like someone changing the definition of a
topological space in order to refute a theorem in
topology,"</span></p></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div></div>
<div><font size="2">I have clearly defined what omniscient means and the
implications of this definition; I believe this definition to be
the traditional definition, and hence I am not interested in pursuing a
dialog where someone keeps trying to change the definition in order to
allow free will, omniscience, etc to be compatible. This dialog
makes me feel like being at Subway when asked "What do you want on that?"
and I reply "Everything except hot peppers," but the server continues to ask
whether I want each and every particular possible addition to the sandwich
under construction.</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">Other Vision 2020 readers can see and decide for
themselves what has occurred in this dialog, if they are
interested.</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">I am more interested in the exposing the phonies and their
motivation in pursuing a clearly logically impossible definition of
some alleged God than dealing with those that either cannot, do nor wish to
understand or pretend that they have not understood what I have
written.</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">w.</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<blockquote style="border-left:#000000 2px solid;padding-left:5px;padding-right:0px;margin-left:5px;margin-right:0px">
<div>
<div style="font:10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </div>
<div style="font:10pt arial;background:#e4e4e4"><b>From:</b> <a title="philosopher.joe@gmail.com" href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" target="_blank">Joe Campbell</a> </div>
<div style="font:10pt arial"><b>To:</b> <a title="deco@moscow.com" href="mailto:deco@moscow.com" target="_blank">Art Deco</a> </div></div>
<div>
<div></div>
<div>
<div style="font:10pt arial"><b>Sent:</b> Friday, May 20, 2011 6:07
AM</div>
<div style="font:10pt arial"><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Vision2020] Response to
Joe, Donovan [More]</div>
<div><br></div>Let's just stick to one thing at a time. Let's see if you
can prove just one part of your story: given that God knows everything --
meaning everything that is true, will be true, or was true -- then no one
has free will. You keep saying it. Prove it. We'll go from there.<br><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Art Deco <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:deco@moscow.com" target="_blank">deco@moscow.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="border-left:#ccc 1px solid;margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div><font size="2">
<table style="border-collapse:collapse" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom:#ece9d8;border-left:#ece9d8;padding-bottom:0in;background-color:transparent;padding-left:5.4pt;width:7.65in;padding-right:5.4pt;border-top:#ece9d8;border-right:#ece9d8;padding-top:0in" valign="top" width="734">
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">[Sigh!]</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">When I wrote:</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0.5in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:blue"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0.5in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:blue">"However, again if you
want to refute the arguments in my analysis of the Problem of
Evil, then do it by showing a mistake in their logical structure,
not by changing the context of the assertions or by changing the
meaning of words that I have taken pains from the beginning to
make clear, and meanings which as far as I know are the
traditional meanings used by philosophers and
theologians.<span> </span>Such tactics are like someone
changing the definition of a topological space in order to refute
a theorem in topology,"</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">I thought that this request would be
respected.<span> </span>Unfortunately this didn't
happen.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">Joe wrote:</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0.5in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:blue">"It depends entirely on
how God knows all things. If God predicts the future like we do,
then his omnipotence might not yield his knowing all things --
past, present, and future. There are factors -- chaos is one --
which might get in the way of his ability to predict. Again, you
have to keep an open mind about the idea of an omniscient creature
knowing everything there is to know. If the future is unreal in
the sense that it has yet to come to pass, there is nothing about
it to know."</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">This is again a transparent attempt
to bypass what is most likely an unpalatable conclusion, namely,
if some alleged God is omnipotent and omniscient, then humankind
does not have free will and God is responsible for
evil.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">In the last and earlier posts, I
defined the way I was using omniscience:</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0.5in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:blue">"Earlier, to forestall
these kinds of claims, I clearly defined the "omniscience" of the
alleged God:<span> </span>"<b>At all times past, present and
future God knows everything, past, present, and
future."<span> </span>There are no gaps in God's
foreknowledge or knowledge.</b><span> </span>I believe that
this is the traditional definition used by philosophers and
theologians who have discussed this subject.<span>
</span>Regardless, this is how I have used the concept of
omniscience in this discussion.<span> </span>If you want to
show that my analysis is in error, please use words in the same
way I have."</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">Perhaps, that was not clear
enough.<span> </span>Perhaps some people, like some of the
servers at Subway, do not know what "all" or "everything"
means.<span> </span>Hence, if Joe is confused, others may be
also.<span> </span>So I will draw out some of the obvious
conclusions implicit in the definitions I have given so that some
of the confusion the words "all" and :everything" may cause might
be reduced.<span> </span>At all times henceforth the word
"God" means "alleged God."</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">In the formulation of the Problem of
Evil under discussion, key terms are defined as
follows.<span> </span>I believe that these definitions of
terms are not new, but reflect their traditional usage in
philosophical and theological dogma and debate.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">A.<span>
</span><b>God is omnipotent</b> (all powerful) means at a minimum
God can do/cause/ordain/etc anything (plan, event, sequence of
events, creative acts, etc).<span> </span>For the purposes
of human communication God can do any set of events which can be
expressed in a non-contradictory combination of
statements.<span> </span>There may be other things God can
do which cannot be formulated by statements which are outside the
realm of human communication or outside the realm of possible
human knowledge, if so, such powers are not
discussable.<span> </span>In short, God can do anything not
linguistically contradictory.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">B.<span>
</span><b>God is omniscient </b>(all knowing)<b> </b>means at a
minimum at all times past, present and future God knows
everything, past, present, and future.<span> </span>There
are no gaps in God's foreknowledge or knowledge.<span>
</span>This knowledge includes knowledge of the universe as we
know and exist in it. God has, and always has had complete
knowledge of the past and present and has and always has had
complete foreknowledge.<span> </span>There are no errors in
God's knowledge.<span> </span>God can and does predict
everything exactly and correctly and in the correct
sequence.<span> </span>Given any conditions/states, God
knows what will result from such conditions/states.<span>
</span>God's knowledge extends to every conceivable thing in the
universe including physical events and mental events.<span>
</span>In the case of mental events, God's knowledge and
foreknowledge includes all conscious events and states in all
human beings including feelings and mental acts, which includes
all the mental processes of choice made or experienced by human
beings.<span> </span>God knows exactly in all cases what is
good and what is evil.<span> </span>God knows, and has
always known everything.<span> </span>There isn't anything
that God does not know.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">C.<span>
</span><b>God is Omnibenevolent</b> means at a minimum that God is
perfectly good, abhors and if it could, would not permit anything
evil to exist, including something egregiously evil, to exist, and
if it could, would not permit anything which would cause anything
evil to exist.<span> </span>[Note the use of the words
"anything evil."<span> </span>Only one instance of something
evil is needed to refute a claim of omnibenevolence.]</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:Verdana">The Problem of Evil:</span></b><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">1.<span>
</span>There is a God.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">2.<span>
</span>God is omnipotent.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">3.<span>
</span>God is omniscient.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">4.<span>
</span>God is omnibenevolent.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">5.<span>
</span>God knowingly and intentionally planned and created the
universe and everything in it.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">6.<span>
</span>Since God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent,
and created the universe, then God is the cause/determiner of
<b>everything</b> that happens as a result of its all-knowing and
intentional act of creation from the moment of that
creation.<span> </span>God was/is/will be in complete
control and the determiner of <b>everything</b> at all
times.<span> </span>To assert there is something that God is
not in complete control of (something somehow left to chance) is
to deny either God's omnipotence and/or omniscience.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">7.<span>
</span>Since God is omniscient, God had exact foreknowledge of
<b>everything</b> that would occur/be determined as a result of
its omnipotent act of creation.<span> </span>To say God
didn't know exactly to a tee what would occur or be determined as
a result of his plan of creation would be to contradict God's
omniscience.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">8.<span>
</span>Since God is omnipotent and omniscient, <b>everything</b>
that happens in the universe was knowingly and intentionally
predetermined from the moment of creation.<span>
</span>Therefore, all future acts of humankind, including all
mental acts such as the processes of choosing, were predetermined
at moment of creation.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">9.<span>
</span>If <b>all</b> acts of humankind are predetermined including
mental acts, then there can be no freedom of choice or so-called
free will.<span> </span>If there are acts of which God did
not have foreknowledge of, then God is not omniscient.<span>
</span>If there are acts of which God is not in control of or the
determiner of but are somehow left to chance, then God is not
omnipotent.<span> </span>Therefore, the appearance of
freewill is an illusion/delusion if God is omnipotent and
omniscient.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">10.<span>
</span><b>Any</b> event/act that occurs in the universe was either
predetermined at the moment of creation or not.<span>
</span>If God is omnipotent and omniscient then God intentionally
and knowingly created/determined the universe to be the way it now
exists.<span> </span>If there is something, like a human act
which is not predetermined, but has been somehow left to chance
(an unknown outcome), then God is not omniscient.<span>
</span>If there is real choice, and thus an indeterminate gap in
God's knowledge, there is not predetermination, and thus God is
not omniscient. If there was no gap in God's
knowledge/foreknowledge at the moment of creation, then <b>all
</b>events and acts are therefore knowingly and intentionally
predetermined by God.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">11.<span>
</span>Therefore all acts of humankind including mental acts which
include the processes of choice are predetermined and occur
regardless of the appearance of choice/freewill, if God is
omnipotent and omniscient.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">12.<span> </span>If
God is omnibenevolent (<b>perfectly</b> good), then every act that
God has control over or determines would be not be evil or lead to
evil.<span> </span>God would not knowingly and/or
intentionally perform or allow the performance of any act that was
evil or lead to evil.<span> </span>If God is omnibenevolent
(<b>perfectly</b> good), and thus totally and completely abhorrent
to and completely opposed to evil, and this omnipotent, omniscient
God was in complete control and the determiner of everything that
happens in the universe from the moment of creation, then
<b>nothing</b> evil would or could ever exist in the
universe.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">13.<span>
</span>Since God is omnipotent, omniscient, and thus is in a
position to unequivocally impose its omnibenevolence, then <b>evil
does not and cannot not exist</b>.<span> </span>Hence,
<b>no</b> acts by humankind are evil.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">14.<span>
</span>The rape and murder of a five year old child by a not
mentally retarded man is an evil.<span> </span>Such an act
has occurred.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">15.<span>
</span>Therefore, evil unequivocally exists.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">16. <span> </span>This
contradicts the assertion that God is omnibenevolent.<span>
</span>God has caused or an evil event to occur.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">17.<span>
</span>Therefore, it is logically impossible for an omnipotent,
omniscient, omnibenevolent God to exist.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">The Problem of Evil is an age old
dilemma.<span> </span>I make no claim to have discovered or
written anything original.<span> </span>My hope is that I
have described the Problem of Evil in such a clear and explicit
manner so that all but the linguistically challenged or
emotionally paralyzed can understand it and understand clearly
that there cannot be an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent
God.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana">I believe that it is important to
write this.<span> </span>The belief in an omnipotent,
omniscient, omnibenevolent God is a fundamental tenet of Islam and
of most Christian sects.<span> </span>On the basis of
this tenet people lives are controlled, not always to their
benefit, and their money fleeced from them, especially by
Christian sects.<span> </span>Belief in this tenet also
impedes the recognition and/or finding of real solutions to human
and terrestrial problems, and thus prolonging the misery caused by
these problems.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span> </p></td></tr></tbody></table>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"><font size="3"></font></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"><font size="3"></font></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"><font size="3"></font></span> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana"><font size="3"></font></span> </p></font></div>
<blockquote style="border-left:#000000 2px solid;padding-left:5px;padding-right:0px;margin-left:5px;margin-right:0px">
<div style="font:10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </div>
<div style="font:10pt arial;background:#e4e4e4"><b>From:</b> <a title="philosopher.joe@gmail.com" href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" target="_blank">Joe Campbell</a>
</div>
<div style="font:10pt arial"><b>To:</b> <a title="deco@moscow.com" href="mailto:deco@moscow.com" target="_blank">Art Deco</a> </div>
<div style="font:10pt arial"><b>Cc:</b> <a title="vision2020@moscow.com" href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">Vision 2020</a> </div>
<div style="font:10pt arial"><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, May 18, 2011
4:26 PM</div>
<div style="font:10pt arial"><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Vision2020]
Response to Joe, Donovan [More]</div>
<div><br></div>Wayne,<br><br>It depends entirely on how God knows all
things. If God predicts the future like we do, then his omnipotence
might not yield his knowing all things -- past, present, and future.
There are factors -- chaos is one -- which might get in the way of his
ability to predict. Again, you have to keep an open mind about the
idea of an omniscient creature knowing everything there is to know. If
the future is unreal in the sense that it has yet to come to pass,
there is nothing about it to know.<br><br>Maybe there is a sense of
omniscience in which God doesn't come to know anything any particular
way; God simply knows all things. I can see how one might want to
yearn for a God that knows everything ever was true, is true, or will
be true. But a God who only knows all that is true is good enough for
me. Thus, I honestly don't think that theism and omniscience entails
that God has universal predictability. Nor would I deny that God has
universal predictability.<br><br>But suppose he does have universal
predictability? Does that mean that no one has free will? You
write:<font size="2"><font size="2"> "In this context, asserting there is
freewill or real choice by humankind means that the chooser can choose
to do something not completely determined or predicted by an
omnipotent, omniscient God, an obvious contradiction.</font></font>"
Again, why suppose that the free act has to be unpredictable? I can
predict quite a lot about your future behavior. I'm sure you wife can
predict even more. It seems like, the more one gets to know you the
easier it is to predict your future behavior. Even if God is just very
good at drawing inferences, he's going to be able say a lot about what
you'll do in the future. But he is better than anyone at drawing
inferences. Since I don't see how my predictions of your behavior
undermine your freedom, I'm not sure why God's predictions would
undermine them. That I predict that you will do A is no assurance that
you're doing A was not up to you. I don't see the
contradiction.<br><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Art Deco <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:deco@moscow.com" target="_blank">deco@moscow.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="border-left:#ccc 1px solid;margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div><font size="2">
<div><font size="2">Joe writes:</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font color="#0000ff" size="2">"First, determinism does not entail
predictability." & "Nor does predictability ensure
determinism."</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">For ordinary mortals, this is true. Events
may be completely determined, but not enough is known to predict
them with 100% accuracy, for example, the weather.</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">However, in the context of the Problem of Evil,
these claims are irrelevant:</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">An alleged omnipotent, omniscient God is a God
that knows everything can predict with 100% accuracy all outcomes,
events, etc. In this case 100% error free predictability means that
everything is determined -- it is bound to happen, it can happen
only in the manner ordained and thus predicted by God, especially in
this context where this alleged God knew everything that would
happen henceforth in its creation at the moment of creation
(foreknowledge). </font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">Similarly, in this context if everything was
ordained and thus determined by an omnipotent, omniscient God, then
that God can predict everything with 100%, error free
accuracy.</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">Simply, in the context of an alleged omnipotent,
omniscient God, "determined" entails "predictability" by that
God and "predictability" entails "determined."</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">In this context, asserting there is freewill or
real choice by humankind means that the chooser can choose to do
something not completely determined or predicted by an omnipotent,
omniscient God, an obvious contradiction.</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">What others may have said, including big name
philosophers, at this point is irrelevant to the simple arguments
presented. If you want to refute these argument, then do it by
showing a mistake in logical structure, not by changing the context
of the assumptions and assertions or by changing the meaning of
words that I have taken pains from the beginning to make
clear.</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">You offer the following:</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font color="#0000ff" size="2">"C) God created the world fully
determined and humans have free will. Further the world is chaotic
and <font size="3"><font color="#000000"><span><font color="#0000ff" size="2">God is unable to predict the outcome of the world in complete
detail even though it is fully determined.</font>
</span></font></font>You are likely correct that on this model you'd
have to reject God's omniscience but there would be an explanation
of his "ignorance," e.g. the chaotic nature of the
universe.<br><br>D) God created an undetermined world and humans
have free will. Since the world is undetermined he is unable to
predict the outcome of the world in complete detail. In this option
God is still omniscient since the future is unsettled; God still
knows all that is true it is just that propositions about the future
are neither true nor false, so he doesn't know those."</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2">Earlier, to forestall these kinds of claims,
I clearly defined the "omniscience" of the alleged God:
<b>"At all times past, present and future God knows everything,
past, present, and future."</b><span> There are no gaps in
God's foreknowledge or knowledge. I believe that this is the
traditional definition used by philosophers and theologians who have
discussed this subject. Regardless, this is how I have used
the concept of omniscience in this discussion. If you want to
show that my analysis is in error, please use words in the same way
I have.</span></font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">In the context of the Problem of Evil including an
omnipotent, omniscient God the creator.</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">In C above <font color="#0000ff"> "<font size="3"><span><font size="2">God is unable to predict the outcome of
the world in complete detail even though it is fully determined"
<font color="#000000">means that God's foreknowledge at the moment of
creation is denied. As you point out, this is contradictory to
God's omniscience since foreknowledge is part of the
definition/conditions of
omniscience.</font></font></span></font></font></font></div>
<div><font size="2"><font color="#0000ff"><font color="#000000" size="2"><span></span></font></font></font><br> </div>
<div><font size="2">In D above <font color="#0000ff">"God still knows
all that is true it is just that propositions about the future are
neither true nor false, <b>so he doesn't know those</b>"
</font><font color="#000000">acknowledges that there is something that
an omniscient God with complete foreknowledge doesn't know.
This is a contradiction. If the future is undetermined
and unsettled, God is not omniscient.</font></font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">D is curious in other ways. It assumes that
an omniscient God's knowledge is propositional. There can be
many ways of knowing which are not propositional. For example,
my dog Star knows that when I say "Come and get your vitamin"
that if she comes I will give her a dog vitamin. It would
be hard to argue that Star's knowledge is propositional in the same
way human knowledge is propositional since so far as is known, Dogs
only have phatic language communication skills. Knowing
how to dunk a basketball is not propositional knowledge. An
omnipotent, omniscient God cannot be restricted to one way of
knowing. </font></div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>There is no doubt that the concept of free will can have many
meanings. Some of these meanings may (and have) lead to
meaningful research about how much fee choice really exists.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>However, again if you want to refute the arguments in my
analysis of the Problem of Evil, then do it by showing a mistake in
their logical structure, not by changing the context of the
assertions or by changing the meaning of words that I have taken
pains from the beginning to make clear, and meanings which as far as
I know are the traditional meanings used by philosophers and
theologians. Such tactics are like someone changing the
definition of a topological space in order to refute a theorem in
topology.</div>
<div> </div>
<div><br>Wayne A. Fox<br>1009 Karen Lane<br>PO Box 9421<br>Moscow,
ID 83843</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="mailto:waf@moscow.com" target="_blank">waf@moscow.com</a><br><a href="tel:208%20882-7975" value="+12088827975" target="_blank">208
882-7975</a><br></div></font></div>
<blockquote style="border-left:#000000 2px solid;padding-left:5px;padding-right:0px;margin-left:5px;margin-right:0px">
<div style="font:10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </div>
<div style="font:10pt arial;background:#e4e4e4"><b>From:</b> <a title="philosopher.joe@gmail.com" href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" target="_blank">Joe
Campbell</a> </div>
<div style="font:10pt arial"><b>To:</b> <a title="deco@moscow.com" href="mailto:deco@moscow.com" target="_blank">Art Deco</a> </div>
<div style="font:10pt arial"><b>Cc:</b> <a title="vision2020@moscow.com" href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">Vision 2020</a> </div>
<div style="font:10pt arial"><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, May 18, 2011
7:41 AM</div>
<div style="font:10pt arial"><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Vision2020]
Response to Joe, Donovan [More]</div>
<div><br></div>A few points. <br><br>First, determinism does not
entail predictability. Chaotic systems, for instance, may be
determined yet not predictable. Nor does predictability ensure
determinism. I make predictions all the time about a variety of
human behavior and so do you. That in and of itself does not mean
that human behavior is determined. So you can't use "determinism"
and "predictability" as if they mean the same thing. They don't.
One is a metaphysical thesis about the structure of the universe;
the other is an epistemological thesis. See this article for
support of these claims:<br><br><a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/" target="_blank">http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/</a><br><br>Second,
you can't just assume that free will is incompatible with
determinism. Some people (Descartes, Leibniz, Hume, Kant, G.E.
Moore, myself) believe that determinism is compatible with free
will, that the very same event may be determined from the
beginning of time and still (if it is an act) be free. You
yourself pointed out the pitfall of thinking of free will as
indeterminism, for undetermined events are random and randomness
is not the same as freedom. Well if randomness can't get you free
will, it is hard to see how the opposite -- determinism -- can
take free will away. <br><br>My own view is that the thesis of
determinism as absolutely nothing to do with free will. If we
think the two are linked it is pretty easy to show that no one has
free will. Too easy. This was the point of my thought experiment.
We need a better conception of "free will" than the one we get by
contrasting it with determinism. That in a nutshell is what most
of my own philosophical research is concerned with doing:
providing us with a better understanding of what it means for a
human act -- or any act -- to be free.<br><br>Putting these two
points together, I think that there are more options available
than the two that you sketch out below. Here are some of the other
options:<br><br>C) God created the world fully determined and
humans have free will. Further the world is chaotic and God is
unable to predict the outcome of the world in complete detail even
though it is fully determined. You are likely correct that on this
model you'd have to reject God's omniscience but there would be an
explanation of his "ignorance," e.g. the chaotic nature of the
universe.<br><br>D) God created an undetermined world and humans
have free will. Since the world is undetermined he is unable to
predict the outcome of the world in complete detail. In this
option God is still omniscient since the future is unsettled; God
still knows all that is true it is just that propositions about
the future are neither true nor false, so he doesn't know
those.<br><br>Of course, this is not really a response to your
argument. At most, there will just be a few more options to
consider -- maybe just one more, in fact -- and likely you'll find
that model unsatisfactory in light of the evil in the world and
God's supposed attributes. I don't suppose to have a solution to
the problem of evil! I just think that fully stating the argument
is difficult and that it isn't obvious that God's existence is
inconsistent with the existence of evil.<br><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Art Deco
<span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:deco@moscow.com" target="_blank">deco@moscow.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="border-left:#ccc 1px solid;margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div><font size="2">Joe,</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">I just can't follow your argument, nor your
thought experiment. I suspect that we are using different
definitions of "free will" and "determinism."</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">Let's start with the word "determinism" in an
effort to clarify. [Note: "God" in the following
means "alleged God."]</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">Suppose you had a perfect die throwing
machine, a machine that tossed a die in a completely
controlled micro-environment. This machine was set to hold
and to toss the die in the exact same way each time.
</font><font size="2">Barring some anomaly in what in
what are called for the sake of expediency the "laws of
nature" -- in this case physics -- the result will always be the
same. </font><font size="2">The outcome is
"determined." Given the constancy of the "laws of
physics", no other outcome is possible. Betting on the
outcome would be a sure bet; a bet that is never lost. The
outcome is complete predictable without a chance of
error.</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">If, however, the "laws of physics" were not
constant, but were subject to an occasional anomaly, then there
would be some randomness, and there would not be any sure
bet. There would be errors in predictions.</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">In short, I am using the word "determined" to
mean always completely predicable without error or chance of
error.</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">Given the above, the issue of determinism and
freewill in the context of the Problem of Evil can then be
characterized thusly:</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">A. Did God when
creating the universe, plan it down to the very last detail and
then executed that plan exactly? Did God impose upon all
things a "law of all things" from the beginning such that
everything in the universe always acts like the die in the
perfect die throwing machine -- all outcomes, events,
etc were/are completely predictable (known) to God.
If so, that is what I mean by "determinism" in the context of
the Problem of Evil. There is no outcome that God, being
omniscient, did not know (predict) would happen.
There is no randomness in the system.</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">Or</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">B. Did God when
creating the universe leave an element of randomness in its
plan of the universe, and did not attend to every last
detail, randomness say in the form of human "freewill," so that
not all outcomes were completely predictable (known) by
God.</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">If the later, then there are random
events of which God would not have been cognizant of at the
moment of creation or before they occurred, and therefore God
would not be omniscient at the moment of creation or at anytime
before any of these random events occur.</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">Simpler: </font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">A. Did God plan everything,
and being omnipotent, everything happens that way, and being
omniscient, God knows exactly what will happen, and hence
everything is determined (predictable by God), despite
appearances?</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">or </font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">B. Did God plan almost
everything, but left an element of chance/randomness in its plan
in the form of the freewill of humankind, and thus God could not
predict everything from the moment of creation, and
hence God not omniscient?</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">Simpler yet (like the old Clairol
ads):</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">A. Does He know</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2">or </font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">B. doesn't He
know?</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">If A, then all is determined, regardless of
the conscious feeling of choice experienced by
humankind.</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">If B, then freewill exists, but God is not
omniscient having chosen to give up complete
predictability.</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">What is very important in discussing this
issue is to distinguish between there being actual freewill and
there being the appearance of free will. There is little
doubt that many people believe they are exercising free
will. That belief may or may not be true. The more
we learn about human behavior, the more determined (and
predictable) it becomes.</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">God, being omnipotent, could certainly create
a universe where people believe they were exercising free
choice, but in fact, their actions were completely determined
(predictable) by God at the point of creation.
</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">w.</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div> </div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div><br>=======================================================<br> List
services made available by First Step Internet,<br> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>=======================================================<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></blockquote><br>=======================================================<br>
List
services made available by First Step Internet,<br> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>=======================================================<br></blockquote></div><br></blockquote></div>
<br>=======================================================<br>
List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
=======================================================<br></blockquote></div><br>