Discuss

-- Al Schroeder (al.schroeder@nashville.com), February 17, 2001

Answers

Unless, of course, at a certain level, the universe is indeterminate-- -if there is no way for us, or any conceivable intelligence--to know what will happen.

Oddly enough, that is the truth. It's called quantum mechanics. We can determine how photons will react in the aggregate, but we cannot predict how a single photon will react. It's not esoteric, although it is of course incredibly puzzling---your very TV set acting as it does depends on this. On the Heisenberg principle, even God's observations would change the status of the smallest particles.

Besides, you are confusing "causing" and "observing". My autistic son hates for the drier to run. If I start the drier, and he is in the room, he will turn it off. Every time. Now, I myself (with my wife) am responsible for my son being born, for the apartment we live in, and for the drier we bought. Yet is Eric doing this of his own free will?

Of course.

Despite my sure knowledge of what will happen, it is his will, every time.

And of course, as I mentioned on Xeney's forum, free will is a question that is religion-neutral. If God doesn't determine things, than you are the sum total of your experiences and your genetics. Can you act differently? Good question. If you can't---which is what B.F. SKinner would say---than you have no free will.

Would it take something near-miraculous---like, say, quantum indeterminacy firing the neurons in your brain every so often in unexpected ways---to make it different?

Yes indeed.

Even if God is outside time and can view all eternity from beginning to end perfectly---a position I am not per se asserting, but just for the sake of argument---that has no effect on your free choice.

Care to try again?

---Al.

-- Al Schroeder (al.schroeder@nashville.com), February 17, 2001.

"Actually Al, that is precisely where you are missing the point." We'll see.

"If God tosses a coin, he does have to decide which way it falls. Think about what it means to flip a coin -- you toss it into the air, end over end, and see which side lands up. Now picture God flipping a coin. Before he flips the coin he can see which side will land up. But He also -- and here is the key -- can decide which side lands up. As He goes to flip the coin He sees which side will land up. He can alter the toss slightly and cause the coin to land with the other side up. He tosses the coin, so He decides which way the coin will land, nothing else. He has complete control." That's where the assumption comes in. He CAN decide. He doesn't "decide".

"Now, you're going to say that just because he can decide, doesn't mean he must decide. You keep saying that. I say he must decide. Here is the simple proof." Well, no, but let's look at it.... "Let us picture God going to flip a coin. He can decide to flip it so it comes up heads, or he can decide to flip it so it comes up tails."

Yep.

"Okay, let us now make an assumption. Let us assume the when God goes to flip the coin he has a third choice, to let the coin itself decide, or randomness, or whatever. Some force in the universe other than God will decide which way the coin will fall. Okay, so God flips the coin and waits in anticipation to see which way it is going to fall."

NO!!!!!!!

Dave, He KNOWS which way it will fall. He is outside time, so there is no anticipation.

You say you accept "observation does not equal causation"---but your very words show you DON'T believe that. You say you will allow a third force to act on it---then it is that third force that "decides" WHETHER GOD KNOWS THE OUTCOME OR NOT!!!

Someday---I hope--you'll get it.

"Whoops! We now have a problem. There is something God does not know, namely which way the coin will fall." That's ridiculous. A Being outside of Time could see the end of all things. It is not implied or even likely from your previous descriptions. It is YOU who is making an unwarranted assumption--- that a third force acting on it would make God unable to see the results in the future, OR that observation implies causation.

" But God is all-knowing, so there can't be something he doesn't know."

Right, and then you ruin it with.... "Thus we see that our assumption must be invalid. There is no third choice. God must decide."

That's total balderdash. It is the third force that decides, and God's foreknowledge of the choice does not make it God's decision, but that third force's acting on it. Again, PLEASE try to understand. You give lip service to "observation does not equal causation" but your every statement above says you--mistakenly---believe observation DOES equal causation.

"Just as God cannot create a rock too heavy too lift, he cannot create something he does not know."

*Sigh* Again. Knowledge---even omniscience---does not equal casuation. I grant you He knows it. I do not grant He personally decides every cause that acts on you, or through you---for instance, your own free will.

" These are the logical consequences of omnipotence and omniscience." Unfortunately, there is nothing logical about it. Again---even if God knows beforehand exactly what will happen---unless He uses some force to act upon the event---He did not cause it.

It's an unwarranted assumption. You have yet to prove it, or even make it sound reasonable. Foreknowledge does not equal causation or determination.

"And why do you keep calling me Dave? My name is Manmander."

Must have been an intersting Christening, Dave.---Al

-- Al Schroeder (al.schroeder@nashville.com), March 09, 2001.

"Al, you were adamently agreed that God could not create a rock too heavy for Himself to lift. That the answer is no is easily proven using symbolic logic.

"Okay then, consider the following proof against free will. "(A) Axiom #1 - Omniscience - God is all knowing "(B) Axiom #2 - Omnipotence - God is all powerful "(C) Axiom #3 - God created the universe and all that is in it." Okay.

"Theory: I have free will."

Again, okay.

"In 1 minute I will write down a number between 1 and 1000. Does God know what this number will be? By Axiom #1 we know that he does."

Right.

"By Axiom #3, God created the universe. At the time He created the universe, did God know what number I would write down? Again by Axiom #1, yes, He did."

Again, right.

"Okay, I just wrote down the number: 555. So it turns out God created a universe in which I would write down the number 555. Could God have created a universe in which I wrote down the number 557? 559? How about 751? By Axiom #2, the answer is, "of course." He is all powerful. He could have created any universe He wanted."

And that is JUST WHERE you make your mistake.

Could God have created a universe where you wrote down a different number?

Of course. It could have been forced or even suggested by any number of means.

Could God have created a universe where He had NO INFLUENCE on your answer whatsoever?

Where you are free to make up your own mind about it, where He brought no influence whatsoever to bear on the same?

THINK before you answer, Dave.

The answer is---from #2---again, "Of course". "So when God decided what sort of universe He would create, He also decided what number I would write down."

No. Again. He knew what the number was. He COULD have forced the issue in any number of ways. He could also, as it were, leave it alone, and leave the decision to you---and take YOUR (totally independent) decision into account to the sum total of creation.

As a built-in variable element can contribute to a really good art effect....

"God chose what number I would write down."

I'm sorry, but that's a classical that-does-not-NECESSARILY-follow. Just because He could create universes that would force you to choose another number---does not remotely prove that He created this universe where you would have no other choice than to pick that number.

Even if it was foreseen, the choice remains---with you.

"Now, the above constitutes a proof all on its own," Forgive me, but I don't think constructing such proofs were your strong point in school...

"... but let me prove it again by contradiction, since I already know precisely what your fallacious counterargument will be. So: "1. Assume that when God created the universe (by Axiom #3) he decided to leave a decision for later." Or not to decide at all, but let things take their course....

"2. By Axiom #2 He is all-powerful, so he can leave the decision for later, right?"

Boy, could you use a good reading of Thomas Aquinas.

" But if he leaves the decision for later, then at the time of Creation he is not all-knowing -- there is something he doesn't know, namely what number I will write down."

*Sigh* Again. Knowledge is not causation.

" This contradicts Axiom #1, and thus proves our assumption is false. Again we must conclude that God had to choose at the time of creation. "

It means nothing of the sort.

Suppose I build an artistic exhibit of colored sands. Suppose I put some ants in it, to build tunnels in same, and then incorporate their tunnels into the overall artistic theme. I, as the artist, did not choose which way the ants tunnelled,although the tunnels are an important part of the finished creation, and voluntarily introduced the ants into them. The ants with the tunnels are us with our free will. The finished artistic creation mirrors the finished Creation as foreseen by God. But in no case does the Creator---whether Artist or God---force the way the tunnels or free will goes.

"Since God has already chosen, it is impossible for me to choose also. Thus, I have no free will, it is a mere illusion."

*Sigh* Again. God takes into account the choice of your free will (which He foresees) into the sum total of creation.

"The above proof is airtight."

It's a sieve.

"Point out the flaw."

I have. It's big enough to drive a truck through.

"You cannot do so without ignoring one of the Axioms."

No, you cannot make your argument without making this error in logic---that the ability to choose means that one has used that ability. God could make every one of our decisions for us. He doesn't.

"That is the problem with every one of your counterarguments -- you ignore one of the Axioms."

Dave, PLEASE understand. The ability to be able to force someone does not mean you do. Okay? It is that which you have to prove...and which you haven't.

--Al PS. Despite axiom #2, there are some things God cannot do, omnipotent or not---which you would know if you read Aquinas. I highly recommend him.

-- Al Schroeder (al.schroeder@nashville.com), March 20, 2001.

We are told that God created the universe and everything in it. We are also told that God is all-knowing. Thus, we He created the universe He saw everything that would happen until the end of His universe. For example, he saw that on February 16, 2001 I would decide to eat a cheeseburger. We are also told that God is all powerful. Thus, he could have also created a universe identical to this universe in all respects, except that on February 16, 2001 I decide to eat chicken nuggets.

We can see that when God created the universe He decided what I would eat for dinner, each and every night. He decided. Thus, I have no free will.

-- Manmander (mb@universal.com), February 17, 2001.

AN ignoramus' opinion. I do not believe that a Diety would build humanity with the brain power it has and the ability to bollix everything up or make this life sublime -- just to herd humans. I believe, yes I do. But I do not believe that the Diety has the past, present and future preplanned from the time of creation. Rather I believe he made us and gave us the spark of life, and a brain and spirit expecting us to live on our own with only an occasional miracle to help things along. Why make something so well engineered and with the abilities it has, just to keep his finger on us all the time ? My opinion.

-- Denver doug (ionoi@webtv.net), February 18, 2001.

As a Buddhist I may see God differently, in Buddhism god is a realm of exhistence that is not necessarily the final step. I wonder a lot about free will, which comes from a combination of working in inner city schools and several behavioral psycology courses. It seems that some people's environments are so limited that there is not a lot of free will. Every experience has pushed them to a certain kind of behavior. This behavior rewards them by helping them survive in their environment. We can change their environment or introduce new stimuli into their environment, but those things are often at the power of social workers and teachers, not the students themselves. However there is always the exceptional person that reacts completely contrary to his/her environment so I don't know.

-- AJ (joijoijoi@hotmail.com), February 18, 2001.

Denver Doug: That's a fairly reasonable outlook, but it does mean that you don't believe in the bible. The bible says:

"When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be." (Psalm 139:15-16)

-- Manmander (mb@universal.com), February 19, 2001.

Al: You completely ignored my point. You are not all-knowing or all- powerful, so your son doesn't enter in to it. To illustrate my point:

Assume you are all knowing. When you create your son you can see his entire life. Assume also that you are all powerful. You can create any child you want. You can create a child that goes to school, or one that doesn't. *You* decide. In fact, since you are all powerful and all knowing, you can't help but decide his or her entire life when you them them.

*That* is the problem. If you're all powerful and all knowing it is impossible to create a being with free will.

-- Manmander (mb@universal.com), February 19, 2001.

Here's another one for you. Why did God test Eve in the garden of Eden? He already knew what she'd do, didn't he? In fact, He decided what she'd do we He created her, since He knew ahead of time what she'd do and could have created her differently.

-- Manmander (mb@universal.com), February 19, 2001.

You may mean sir that I do not believe as you do. I personally believe that the Bible is divinely inspired -- but has passed through the hands of translators who interpreted as their king wanted them to. The Bible I feel is Holy -- I also feel that it is not accurate due to the human element.

From time to time through my life I have attended many different Christian services wherein many passages of The Bible, were quoted with interpretations 180 degrees opposite each other.

I think my first posting to this question of Al's and this one pretty well show how I feel.

A humble request though, I ask that you do not tell me what I believe or don't. I am not learned, nor have any special ax to grind. I stated how I feel, amen.

-- Denver doug (ionoi@webtv.net), February 19, 2001.

Denver Doug: I didn't tell you what you believed, you told us. You have made it clear you do not believe that God is all-knowing. Since the bible is very clear that God is all-knowing, *you* have told us you don't believe in the God described in the bible. Either you believe, or you don't. You can't very well claim to believe in the God described in the bible but not his description! That's absurd.

You translation excuse doesn't do you any good either. As far as I know we have all the original writings in the original languages. The translation of the bible has not become muddied over the years. No, just the opposite -- the translation has been improved. Jesus himself used the Greek translation of the old testament - he never complained about it, on the contrary, he and his followers quoted it. Surely Jesus Himself would have pointed out any glaring problems.

-- Manmander (mb@universal.com), February 19, 2001.

Here's another one:

Psalm 139:4 Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD.

This begs the question: why bother praying? He already knows what you're going to say!

-- Manmander (mb@universal.com), February 19, 2001.

"Al: You completely ignored my point."

Well...no. But I'd be happy to try again...

"You are not all-knowing or all- powerful, so your son doesn't enter in to it. To illustrate my point:

"Assume you are all knowing. When you create your son you can see his entire life. Assume also that you are all powerful. You can create any child you want. You can create a child that goes to school, or one that doesn't. *You* decide. In fact, since you are all powerful and all knowing, you can't help but decide his or her entire life when you them them.

"*That* is the problem. If you're all powerful and all knowing it is impossible to create a being with free will."

Then I would hardly be all powerful would I---if I cannot create a being with free will?

If something is impossible for me---than I, ipso facto---would not be all powerful.

Let me try it this way. In the example mentioned above, if I saw Eric turn on the drier again---does my observing it negate his free will?

If my wife made a movie of it and I watched it---did my watching it negate his free will?

Language problems: they are inevitable when you are dealing with a being who may be OUTSIDE Time, as opposed to inside. Let's imagine God as a being outside of time, who sees all of time as a tapestry in front of Him. From the Big Bang to the Universe's final fate, he sees it all. He sees all of my life, from birth to death.

He may see several choices I made---but that doesn't necessarily mean he made those choices for me. Instead, he may take my free choice as part of the tapestry he is weaving---as an artist might incorporate a silkworm's or a spiderweb's "design" into the tapestry he is making.

Foreknowledge is not forcing the path. Any more than my observing what a spider does, and incorporating it into a design I am doing forces the spider to do it that way.

It is perfectly within my power to make a program in which some of the constructs within it will act in a way I did not originally program for---to put a random element in it. Many programs have been made like that. Even though I designed the game---even though everything originally put into the game/program is out of my head--- that random element can make it grow and develop in ways I can observe, but did not necessarily cause.

I could even program an end to the game, no matter how it progresses, that would happen regardless...and still be interested in how the game progresses in the interim.

I know it's hard to think like a Timeless Being. But you can try.

By the way---just because God is all-powerful doesn't mean He always has to use His omnipotence. Of course, God could create a universe where He makes every choice, where every word uttered is dictated by Him. Think about it, though...think how utterly boring that would be to Him.

The only sort of universe that would be pleasing in the long run is one where He grants beings free will, so that they can make choices---so He can observe and sometimes even be surprised--by what choices they make. As I can observe, all at once, the beauty of a spiderweb a spider made---even if I didn't have to stand there and watch the spider laboriously built it.

May I recommend a book with a good chapter on it? C.S. Lewis' MIRACLES has an excellent chapter on same. After that, if you want, you can get into the heavy theology. This is old stuff, covered thousands of times before---and free will is the cornerstone of any non-radical Christian theology.

--Al.

-- Al Schroeder (aschroeder@comdata.com), February 19, 2001.

Oh...as for why to bother praying if God knows what we are going to pray...that is assuming that the prayer is only needed for HIM. Maybe it's needed for us.

Ever had kids? Ever wait for them to ask for something before you got it for them? I could constantly replenish my kids' cups, for instance, but I usually, even when they're small, wait for them to ask for it.

Because the very act of trying to communicate is good for them---for the talking as well as the autistic one.

To a being OUTSIDE of Time, perhaps every prayer is taken into account in the final tapestry. That the tapestry would have looked a little differently---if that prayer had not been made. To us living inside Time, it looks like it might be rigged, but in reality, every free choice---including a plea to God---is taken into account. And woven into the final Tapestry.

Again---as I can take a spiderweb's design and incorporate it into a larger design.

Care to try again? I can keep this up as long as you can.

Or would you like me to recommend to you more books on the subject? Be happy to.

---Al.

-- Al Schroeder (aschroeder@comdata.com), February 19, 2001.

Oh...by the way, I'm not a literalist on Genesis, seeing it more as a metaphor for Man's choice in choosing what he thinks is better, as opposed to what his Creator thinks is better---but as for your Eve question---I would instead answer that the whole purpose of the universe is to find out if thinking, sentient beings will be able to make unforced choices towards the good without God imposing His will directly on them.

Not the "unforced".

So we are not puppets but make the choices ourselves.

Does that sound miraculous? It is. But otherwise you are at the mercy of your genetics and your environment, and can be seen as equally without free will. Certainly B.F. Skinner would argue so.

I instead say my choices are REAL---not predetermined---not by the first photon's moving continuing on for billions of years---and not by Fate, or Destiny, or even God. God may know what my choices will be---but He did not make them.

I did.---Al.

-- Al Schroeder (aschroeder@nashville.com), February 19, 2001.

I meant "NOTE the 'unforced'". Sorry.---Al

-- Al Schroeder (aschroeder@comdata.com), February 19, 2001.

Al wrote:
"Then I would hardly be all powerful would I---if I cannot create a being with free will?"

By jove I think you're starting to catch on! You are exactly right. The bible contains a contradiction. The following 4 cannot all be true:
1. God is all-knowing. 2. God is all-powerful. 3. God created us. 4. God gave us a free will.

Al wrote:
"In the example mentioned above, if I saw Eric turn on the drier again---does my observing it negate his free will?"

It does if you saw him turn on the drier before you created him - and had the power to create him so that he would turn on the drier at that point in time or not.

Al wrote:
"It is perfectly within my power to make a program in which some of the constructs within it will act in a way I did not originally program for---to put a random element in it."

It's within *your* power, sure. But He who is all-seeing would know the outcome of any random element. He know everything, remember?

Al wrote:
"The only sort of universe that would be pleasing in the long run is one where He grants beings free will, so that they can make choices---so He can observe and sometimes even be surprised..."

Not according to the bible, Al. I'll be happy to look up the passage if you want me to -- it specifically states in the bible that we cannot surprise God.

Do you even know what omniscient means? He see the end from the beginning.

-- Manmander (mb@universal.com), February 19, 2001.

Whew!

-- Kev Summitt (kevsummitt@aol.com), February 19, 2001.

Mr. Manmander, I am a simple man, not expert in any field and not one who can discuss various elements in the bible or quantum mechanics. Al asked us to discuss. I put forward my beliefs, not to start a hooraw flame war. From your posting it became no longer a discussion but a one-upman thing. I made no claims other than to say what I believe. I could respect your comments if the word absurd was not used, if you didn't condesendingly appear, at least to my eyes, to try to shuffle this little boy of to the side so that the big folks could do their thing. DO NOT TELL ME WHAT I THINK - - - - it can change from minute to minute. YOU ARE NOT INSIDE MY BRAIN ! If you want to say that there seems to be a conflict in my statements . . . . . that would be a civil way to go . . . . . I find your attitude toward me insulting. Al Schroeder handles things in a civil and diplomatic way, rather than the way you are going at it. By the way, are you a friend of or related to Dave Van ? Your Superior attitude seems to point that way. I have had my say, I have stated my belief, I made no claim to superior knowledge or talent. I replied the second time because of you . . . I will continue to follow this thread - - - but not respond in any way. Sorry Al

-- Denver doug (ionoi@webtv.net), February 19, 2001.

Denver doug: If what you think changes from minute to minute, whyever do you bother to tell us about it? By the time we read it you could have changed your mind. So you're saying you've changed your position since you first wrote in this topic? What's your new position?

Oh, wait -- you haven't changed your position at all, have you? Does it bother you to find out you don't believe in the bible?

For the record, *I* started this topic, at Al's request. I used Al's name and email since I didn't know if it would work properly otherwise. (Sorry, Al, perhaps that wasn't such a good idea.)

It says, "discuss." Perhaps you need some help with the meaning of that word.

discuss: a : to investigate by reasoning or argument b : to present in detail for examination or consideration c : to talk about

-- Manmander (mb@universal.com), February 19, 2001.

"By jove I think you're starting to catch on! You are exactly right. The bible contains a contradiction. The following 4 cannot all be true:

1. God is all-knowing. 2. God is all-powerful. 3. God created us. 4. God gave us a free will."

Sure they can. And you haven't demonstrated differently. (The onus is on you, since you're making the assertion, BTW.)

"It does if you saw him turn on the drier before you created him - and had the power to create him so that he would turn on the drier at that point in time or not."

BZZZZZTTT!!! Wrong. Again, You are confusing foreknowledge with forcing the being to do so. Just because one observes different futures, and chooses one, it doesn't mean you negate all the free will along that choice.

But thank you for playing our game...

"It's within *your* power, sure. But He who is all-seeing would know the outcome of any random element. He know everything, remember?"

Yes, but that doesn't negate the free will involved.

"Not according to the bible, Al. I'll be happy to look up the passage if you want me to -- it specifically states in the bible that we cannot surprise God."

Go ahead. Then I will quote you ten passages in which God offers choice, and leaves it for man to decide. BTW, if you want to argue from the standpoint of a Genesis literalist, WHY did God ask Adam and Eve where they were? Was He surprised? I will leave that an exercise for the energetic student.

Is it possible that the subject is a wee bit more complex than you believe?

"Do you even know what omniscient means? He see the end from the beginning."

I am quite comfortable with the meaning of omniscient, thanks. But a couple of questions:

Is it possible that there is more than one path through time? That God sees a multitude of futures, depending on our choices? (One thinks of Maud'dib's visions of the future in DUNE.) That would be even more omniscient---seeing all possible outcomes.

Yet one doesn't have to do that. Let me steal an argument from C.S. Lewis' MIRACLES...

God and Nature(us) do not share a common Time. It is not correct to say God CREATED the universe. To Him all the physiucal events and all human acts are present in an eternal Now. The liberation of finite wills and the creation of the whole material history of the universe (related to the acts of those in all the necessary complexity) is to Him a single operation. IN this sense God did not create the universe long ago---but creates it at this minute.

At every minute.

Suppose I find a black wavy line already drawn on a piece of paper. I can now sit down and draw other lines (say in red) so shaped to combine with the black line into a pattern. Let us suppose, further, that the black line is conscious---but not conscious along the whole length at once---only on each point on that length in turn.

Let us even give that black line free will. It choose the direction it goes in. The particular wavy shape is the shape it wills to have. But it only knows its shape moment by moment, and cannot see where it will decide to turn in a later moment, I see the entire shape all at once.

At every moment it will find my red lines waiting and adapted for it. Of course; because I, in doing the whole design---have taken its self- chosen shape into account. It's not impossible, just designer's skill for me to devise the red lines in relation to the black line---so it has a satisfactory design.

I'm simplifying it...in the real example, God created the "paper" as well as the lines, and there would be billions of black lines, not just one.

If the black lines tried to talk to the Designer I might even take its requests into account. It doesn't matter where in time I hear it, because I am outside time. To God the prayer we make is as much a part of the creation of the world as they are now---and will be a million years hence.

In a sense it was decided "before all worlds" to quote one beautiful Bible passage...yet it still depeneded on us making a demand NOW in time. Because to God---Time doesn't exist, not in the same sense it does for us.

Please don't treat those of us who believe as simpletons. We have covered this ground a few thousands times before---beginning in the Middle Ages. It's old, and it's outdated, and it's simplistic to mock at it when this is baby talk in theological school--- and it shows someone has not thought this all the way through.

Your turn, I think.

And PLEASE don't say that God knowing what will happen beforehand predetermines it. As the example I used showed, it doesn't.

Have you anything more pertinent to add?--Al.

-- Al Schroeder (aschroeder@comdata.com), February 19, 2001.

Al wrote:
"Is it possible that the subject is a wee bit more complex than you believe?"

Actually, Al, I think the problem is a wee bit more complex that *you* believe. You seem to be trying to dismiss it with a wave of you hand. Futhermore, you repeatedly leave key parts out of the premise, for example...

Al wrote:
And PLEASE don't say that God knowing what will happen beforehand predetermines it."

I never said that. I said it was the combination of his all-knowing, all-powerful AND having created us that contradicts free will.

Al wrote:
Is it possible that there is more than one path through time? That God sees a multitude of futures, depending on our choices? (One thinks of Maud'dib's visions of the future in DUNE.) That would be even more omniscient---seeing all possible outcomes.

If God saw a multitude of futures he also see the one true future. He is all-knowing, remember?

Al wrote:
Just because one observes different futures, and chooses one, it doesn't mean you negate all the free will along that choice.

Bzzzzzt! Wrongo! You can't both choose.

Al, I was hoping you could provide some insight into this apparent contradiction, but you have disappointed me. You can't even seem to grasp the problem.

Perhaps I should start you on an easier problem. Can God create a rock too heavy for Him to lift?

-- Manmander (mb@universal.com), February 20, 2001.

"Actually, Al, I think the problem is a wee bit more complex that *you* believe. You seem to be trying to dismiss it with a wave of you hand. Futhermore, you repeatedly leave key parts out of the premise, for example..."

Every analogy is inexact. You still haven't demonstrated that foreknowledge and omnipotenece precludes free will. And I repeat--- the onus is on you to do so.

"I never said that. I said it was the combination of his all-knowing, all-powerful AND having created us that contradicts free will."

Not so. As in the computer construct with the random element built in to it, by me, the creator, observing it outside of time---many facets of that randomness determine the outcome---which is OBSERVED by me, but doesn't force it.

"If God saw a multitude of futures he also see the one true future. He is all-knowing, remember?"

That's presupposing there IS just one true future. Are you so sure about that? Many quantum physicists aren't.

"Bzzzzzt! Wrongo! You can't both choose."

Certainly we can. And if we can't, it remains your onus to prove it. You haven't yet.

"Al, I was hoping you could provide some insight into this apparent contradiction, but you have disappointed me. You can't even seem to grasp the problem."

You haven't even established that there IS a problem yet. The disappointment is mutual. I gave you several examples who both omniscience and free will could coexist, and you have yet to see that taking into account the being's free will to foresee the final result does NOT mean that you have predetermined the result, even if you created the being.

"Perhaps I should start you on an easier problem. Can God create a rock too heavy for Him to lift?"

No. (Weren't expecting the answer that unequivocal, were you?) Examining the statement in terms of symbolic logic will give you that answer.

Please don't adopt a patronizing tone on this, BTW. READ a little. There are dozens of theologians who can give you expanded answers. C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton are some of the most readable, and after that, you can start on some of the heavy stuff.---Al

-- Manmander (mb@universal.com), February 20, 2001.

-- Al Schroeder (aschroeder@comdata.com), February 20, 2001.

Al: If you're as well read as you claim to be, you know I didn't make that question up -- it's a very famous question. What good do you think you're doing by climbing up on your high horse and recommending this book and that book, which you have done several times in this thread? Would it surprise you to learn that I have read plenty of books and am also capable of finding books on my own? In fact, I prefer it.

The point of this board is to discuss, not go off and read some book.

This makes me wonder -- have you ever had an original thought? Or did everything in your head come from books? (I heard some rumors you were even plagiarizing pictures a while ago!)

And really Al, after the following boneheaded exchange, there's no point in continuing, at least not with you.

Manmander: "You can't both choose."

Al: Certainly we can. And if we can't, it remains your onus to prove it. You haven't yet.

Clearly, if God has chosen a path for us we cannot choose our own path. Next you'll be saying the onus is on me to prove 2 and 2 makes 4.

-- Manmander (mb@universal.com), February 21, 2001.

"Al: If you're as well read as you claim to be, you know I didn't make that question up -- it's a very famous question."

And a very old one. I think I first heard it when I was seven. I think I was twenty-three when I found out symbolic logic irons out the paradoxes in the question and gives an unequivocal no.

Why on Earth did you assume I was ignorant of that question?

"What good do you think you're doing by climbing up on your high horse and recommending this book and that book, which you have done several times in this thread? Would it surprise you to learn that I have read plenty of books and am also capable of finding books on my own? In fact, I prefer it."

Good. I venture to say, judging from your answers, few on theology, though....

"The point of this board is to discuss, not go off and read some book."

It is certainly to think---and not mindlessly assert.

"This makes me wonder -- have you ever had an original thought? Or did everything in your head come from books? (I heard some rumors you were even plagiarizing pictures a while ago!)"

Arguments ad hominem are the resource of the desperate in debates.

"And really Al, after the following boneheaded exchange, there's no point in continuing, at least not with you."

Yet I'm willing. I only asked you to back up your own assertion.

"Clearly, if God has chosen a path for us we cannot choose our own path. Next you'll be saying the onus is on me to prove 2 and 2 makes 4."

But that's exactly the issue---whether God has chosen the path for us....or whether He just witnessed same. Foreknowledge and Creation does not mean He gave me an impulse to steal from a bank or lie to others. Even if He could have chosen another path, which would ultimately have resulted in me choosing differently.

Suppose I maneuver a man, desperate for money, whom I think might be tempted into dishonesty, to be alone in front of a million dollars? It doesn't matter how.

Repeat...it doesn't matter how...whether I created the man and knew with surity how he would act---or whether I'm an employer giving an employee a test of his trustworthiness.

In either case, if the man takes the money, it is his own impulse, and his own fault. Similarly, if he resists, it is his own choice, his own merit.

Only if I somehow force the man to take the money, and he has literally no will---if he is a puppet, acting out my thoughts, rather than his own---can he have no free will.

Like an author having a character speak his thoughts...

(An interesting analogy, by the way, because many authors have known characters they created who, nevertheless, acted differently from how they originally intended, like Galsworthy and Soames Forsyte.)

It's not enough to assert that if God chooses a path for the universe, that He sees how others will act within it---that the free will that the human uses is nonexistent. It might have been taken into account in the act of creation, and allowed for. The same way Rube Goldberg constructs a device, allowing for the law of gravity to pull a iron to the ground, setting off a match....Rube Goldberg didn't make the iron fall. He just knew it would, and took advantage of it.

I'm sorry if the point is eluding you. But again---witnessing something---either in distance, or in time---does not cause something.

I'm afraid all of your arguing, hinges on just that misconception.

I cannot honestly agree to something that is obviously a logical non sequitor.

--Al

-- Al Schroeder (aschroeder@comdata.com), February 21, 2001.

Al wrote:
Foreknowledge and Creation does not mean He gave me an impulse to steal from a bank or lie to others.

Yes it does. God could create a universe in which you don't rob a bank, and he could create a universe alike in all respects except that you do rob a bank. There are no ifs, ands, or buts here. Because of foreknowledge and creation, God decides which universe he creates. He can't leave the decision for later (for you), because then he would create a universe in which He does not have complete foreknowledge.

-- Manmander (mb@universal.com), February 22, 2001.

"Yes it does. God could create a universe in which you don't rob a bank, and he could create a universe alike in all respects except that you do rob a bank. There are no ifs, ands, or buts here. Because of foreknowledge and creation, God decides which universe he creates. He can't leave the decision for later (for you), because then he would create a universe in which He does not have complete foreknowledge."

(Gently sighing). Dave, I know this is a troll, but really...

Try this again.

There is no leaving the decision later for you, because God is outside time. He is creating the universe right now, from His viewpoint....

And taking your decision into account in the general makeup of that universe.

Observation does not equal causation.

The only way the person in the universe you describe had no free will is if there was no other possible way for him to decide to rob the bank. If he did it of his own volition---if God did not go in and forcibly cause him to rob it, by taking over his mind or something--- he did it of his own free will.

--Al.

-- Al Schroeder (aschroeder@nashville.com), February 22, 2001.

Al: Sorry for the dalay, I've been rather busy.

Once again, Al wrote:
Observation does not equal causation.

Al, I agree with that statement, so can you stop repeating it. Stop falling into this trap! God is not just observing us, He CREATED us. Why do you keep forgetting that?

To use your book example: if you're just reading a book, that is observing, so of course you don't cause anything to happen. However, if you're actually writing the book, creating, then not only do you get to decide what happens, but you have to decide what happens.

My assertion, which I did state up above, is that the following four statements, which the bible says are all true, cannot logically co-exist:

1. God is all-knowing (omniscient).
2. God is all-powerful (omnipotent).
3. God created us.
4. God gave us a free will.

-- Manmander (mb@universal.com), February 28, 2001.

"Al, I agree with that statement, so can you stop repeating it. Stop falling into this trap! God is not just observing us, He CREATED us. Why do you keep forgetting that?"

I'm not forgetting it. But the book example is not the only sort of creation.

"To use your book example: if you're just reading a book, that is observing, so of course you don't cause anything to happen. However, if you're actually writing the book, creating, then not only do you get to decide what happens, but you have to decide what happens."

Okay, let's examine that.

In the context of the book---is Timothy Harris responsible for the "crimes" of Hannibal Lector? One can answer on two levels. Within the Secondary reality created within the book, Lector acts within the promptings of his own feelings and urges---always. And indeed, many authors have been startled at how a character does NOT conform to preformed ideas about them, but follow on their own way, carving their own paths. (One might recall the glee that Conan Doyle killed Sherlock Holmes, and how Holmes nevertheless came back---and is now more popular than ever.)

In the Greater Reality of our world, in a sense, Harris is creating Lector's moves. But...a book example is not the only example that can be created.

I have previously cited creating programs where a certain amount of randomness is "built into" the game. Where even the author of the game does not determine the course of the game.

Now, since you have agreed that "observation does not equal causation" the only question is whether God can do what many programmers can do---and build a reality where a certain randomness--- or free will---can be built in.

Interestingly enough, science seems to indicate that fundamentally there is a certain randomness in the cosmos, known as quantum mechanics. One might wonder if such things also occasionally fire neurons and interject random impulses to thinking beings also.

"My assertion, which I did state up above, is that the following four statements, which the bible says are all true, cannot logically co- exist:

"1. God is all-knowing (omniscient)."

Observation does not equal causation, by your own admiession. So that's irrelevant.

"2. God is all-powerful (omnipotent)."

So is the creator of the Sims in the Secondary REality of the Sims. YEt often the game will prove to take unexpected turns for her and him....certainly twists he didn't expect, even though he devised the very rules of the game.

"3. God created us."

As ultimately the designer of the Sims created any Sim- construct...yes?

"4. God gave us a free will."

Now, why can't God do what the creator of the Sims can---make a "game" where random elements are built in which can lead to greater complexity and results he didn't deliberately intend? Why do you grant so much less to one Creator---whereas anyone can see the result of another creator? (The Sims'?)---Al.

-- Al Schroeder (aschroeder@nashville.com), February 28, 2001.

Al wrote:
Now, why can't God do what the creator of the Sims can---make a "game" where random elements are built in which can lead to greater complexity and results he didn't deliberately intend?

Because God has a quality that the creator of the Sims does not -- He is all knowing. "He sees the beginning from the end." (See item (1) above, which you have conveniently dismissed as irrelevant.)

-- Manmander (mb@universal.com), March 01, 2001.

"Because God has a quality that the creator of the Sims does not -- He is all knowing. "He sees the beginning from the end." (See item (1) above, which you have conveniently dismissed as irrelevant.)"

No, that you have agreed that observation does not equal causation. Which you have ---conveniently---forgotten.

For instance, take the story of the Fall. I see it as more a metaphor, but for the sake of argument, let's take it literally. That God set up a perfect environment in which Mankind could live forever in perfect bliss...but also provided one way where mankind could leave that, if they so choose.

Please note that last. If they so choose.

Even if God saw beforehand that humankind WOULD so choose, it does not negate that the choice was mankind's. Even though God created them. God played fair, and they could have stayed there forever. The choice was theirs.

Or take the Moses tale. At the end of his life he took credit for something, rather than God, and God as a consequence of what he chose, kept him from entering the promised land. Now, does God's creation of Moses, or his foreknowledge of Moses' choice at that instant, keep it from being Moses' choice?

Obviously not---if observation does not equal causation, a point you have already granted me.

He has just taken in the choice that Moses made (observation) into his sum total of knowledge. (Omniscience.)

EVen if you think God could have created a different Moses, who would have decided differently at that point---a point that I suspect is more phantom than real, and would be pointless if we were talking to a truly Timeless Being---that still wouldn't make it any less that Moses' free will that chose.

Only if something compelled Moses to make that choice, would his choice not be free. Either supernatural forcing of Moses' will at that point, or maneuvered into a situation in which no other choice was possible. Neither apply here.

I don't think you've quite thought this through, Dave.

--Al.

-- Al Schroeder (aschroeder@nashville.com), March 01, 2001.

Oh, I've thought it through.

Now why are you repeating the observation does not equal causation thing again? Have we not yet laid that tired old axiom to rest? We are talking about much more than simple observation.

Let me use an example to hopefully illustrate the point. Let us say that a scientist prepares two identical glass boxes, except that one is sealed so as to be airtight and the other has vents to let air in. A mouse is placed in each box. After a time the mouse in the sealed box dies from lack of air.

Now, I would say that the scientist killed the mouse. Al, you apparently would insist that "observation does not equal causation," completely ignoring that something happened before the observation (creation!).

You cannot arbitrarily isolate observation. You must consider omniscience, omnipotence, and creation as a whole. In fact, observation isn't really part of my original assertion. He doesn't need to observe us! He already knows what we're going to do. He sees the end at the beginning.

-- Manmander (mb@universal.com), March 02, 2001.

"Oh, I've thought it through." Glad to hear it. It wasn't apparent...

"Now why are you repeating the observation does not equal causation thing again? Have we not yet laid that tired old axiom to rest? We are talking about much more than simple observation."

Are we? Are you sure? The example below falls woefully short as an example of---whatever you're trying to demonstrate.

"Let me use an example to hopefully illustrate the point. Let us say that a scientist prepares two identical glass boxes, except that one is sealed so as to be airtight and the other has vents to let air in. A mouse is placed in each box. After a time the mouse in the sealed box dies from lack of air.

"Now, I would say that the scientist killed the mouse. Al, you apparently would insist that "observation does not equal causation," completely ignoring that something happened before the observation (creation!)."

Sort of a grisly "creation", if you ask me, Dave. In fact, I see very little creation in that, unless you want to say the creation of the boxes. I would agree that the scientist killed the mouse. But the analogy is so different it's laughable.

In the two examples, in one of them, the scientist rigged it so the mouse would die. The mouse had no chance, no choice.

Yet he didn't affect the free will of either mouse while it was alive, they moved at their own volition, etc.

Are there some things beyond our free will? Sure. If a comet is heading towards Earth, to wipe us out as it did the dinosaurs, not much we can do about that. Or the sun is going to swallow the Earth in a billion years while becoming a red giant. Nothing much we can do about that.

Yet do we have free will here on Earth? We seem to. Nothing constrains us. God doesn't fit us into a narrow little path where no other choices are possible, like a rat in a maze.

Most deaths are very explicitedly caused by choices---smoking, obesity, car accidents---and it's both inaccurate in a Cartesian sense to say that because the universe started with this motion, someone will die after ten billion other motions (the basic unpredictability of the universe at the quantum level would contradict that) and that someone who could foresee all those motions could predict that.

Sorry. Doesn't work.

If those initial conditions (which I might remind you, are all God created---he doesn't literally form any one of us, we are quite evidently formed by the action of sperm and ovum, reasonably understood) do not predetermine our courses---which they CAN'T, due to quantum indetermacy over billions of years---then in what sense is God causing me to make a decision one way over another?

In what way is my will not free?

"You cannot arbitrarily isolate observation. You must consider omniscience, omnipotence, and creation as a whole. In fact, observation isn't really part of my original assertion. He doesn't need to observe us! He already knows what we're going to do. He sees the end at the beginning."

What difference does His seeing it or knowing it have to do with it? Why does it make my choice not MY choice, but rather preplanned by Him?

He's outside time. The beginning's right now to Him, Dave. So is the End.

Knowledge does not mean causation, either. Even when you're the ultimate Creator of the cosmos, unless you go through and micro- manage every deed and action that's done, you are not responsible for a decision made billions of years later by a sentient in a universe you've created.

Care to try again? I'm not sure why you can't get this so-obvious point.

Dave, think about this; if you have no free will, and I have no free will, then both of us are puppets, arguing about free will, sock puppets with the hands of the Creator moving both of us.

And arguing with---Himself.

Maybe you think God has nothing better to do than play such mastubatory games. I think He's a little busier---and more self-aware- -- than that.

I sure hope so, anyway.---Al.

-- Al Schroeder (aschroeder@nashville.com), March 02, 2001.

Al wrote:
Even when you're the ultimate Creator of the cosmos, unless you go through and micro-manage every deed and action that's done, you are not responsible for a decision made billions of years later by a sentient in a universe you've created.

But that's just the thing: He is. You're not quite grasping what ALL-knowing and ALL-powerful means. It doesn't matter how small it is, or how far into the future it is, He knows it, and he has the power to change it, however small. Are you questioning the power of an infinite being? The bible does not say that he could know it, no, the bible says that he does know it.

Al wrote:
Dave, think about this; if you have no free will, and I have no free will, then both of us are puppets, arguing about free will, sock puppets with the hands of the Creator moving both of us.

That's pretty absurd, isn't it? But that is exactly what creation by an omnipotent and omniscient God implies.

-- Manmander (mb@universal.com), March 06, 2001.

"But that's just the thing: He is. You're not quite grasping what ALL- knowing and ALL-powerful means. It doesn't matter how small it is, or how far into the future it is, He knows it, and he has the power to change it, however small. Are you questioning the power of an infinite being? The bible does not say that he could know it, no, the bible says that he does know it."

*Sigh* Dave, you've agreed that knowledge does not equal causation, so that "He knows it" is, at best, irrelevant.

Now I want to gain another admission from you. That power does not equal control.

Am I questioning that God COULD control everything? That it is within His power? Nyet.

But it doesn't follow that He does! I have the power to force my children to do all sorts of things, but I don't. I have the power to do it...but I refrain.

Now, why do you assume because God is all-powerful, that He must use His power to force things? Why can't you credit Him with some--- restraint?

In your view, does power necessarily imply control? I would say no, and I can cite you any number of examples of same.

"That's pretty absurd, isn't it? But that is exactly what creation by an omnipotent and omniscient God implies."

You have the oddest definitions of "omnipotent" and "omniscient" I've ever seen.--Al.

-- Al Schroeder (aschroeder@nashville.com), March 06, 2001.

This debate reminds me of the story about the genie who tells this guy that he is all-powerful, and the guy tells the genie, "So, create a rock so big that you can't lift it."

-- Tom Dean (tsd@ogk.com), March 07, 2001.

Al wrote:
I have the power to force my children to do all sorts of things, but I don't. I have the power to do it...but I refrain.

Al, it has already been established that you are not all-knowing or all-powerful. I would further assert that you did not create your children in the same sense as God created us. So your relationship with your children does not offer a whole lot of insight.

Let us try a different tact, then. You have already agreed that God cannot create a rock too heavy for Him to lift. Okay then, answer mr this: can God flip a coin and not know how it is going to land?

-- Manmander (mb@universal.com), March 08, 2001.

"Al, it has already been established that you are not all-knowing or all-powerful. I would further assert that you did not create your children in the same sense as God created us. So your relationship with your children does not offer a whole lot of insight."

No contest to the first. (But not assenting that it makes a difference.) To the second...true, but neither did God create my children in the same physical sense that my wife and I created them. As for the third---God Himself seems to think that the Father-child relationship is the closest thing to the relationship of a Creator and his Creature. Not exact, but close.

"Let us try a different tact, then. You have already agreed that God cannot create a rock too heavy for Him to lift. Okay then, answer mr this: can God flip a coin and not know how it is going to land?"

I don't know for sure; if traditionally single-time-track-thinking is right, then no. If multiple futures are allowed, than it's a possibility, especially if you look at the grainyness of reality through the eye of quantum mechanics....

That still begs the question, Dave. If observation does not equal causation, then does God's foreknowledge and power equal control? Suppose I see you flip a coin and it land heads. Does my observing it- --no matter how knowledgable or powerful I am---mean I have determined its fall?

Even if I were omnipotent?

ONLY...repeat, ONLY...

If I USED my omnipotence to FORCE which way the coin fell.

Yet I don't have to. No matter how omniscient or omnipotent I am, I don't have to.

That's what keeps on eluding you, Dave. Where you keep on missing the point.--Al.

-- Al Schroeder (alschroeder@nashville.com), March 08, 2001.

Actually Al, that is precisely where you are missing the point. If God tosses a coin, he does have to decide which way it falls. Think about what it means to flip a coin -- you toss it into the air, end over end, and see which side lands up. Now picture God flipping a coin. Before he flips the coin he can see which side will land up. But He also -- and here is the key -- can decide which side lands up. As He goes to flip the coin He sees which side will land up. He can alter the toss slightly and cause the coin to land with the other side up. He tosses the coin, so He decides which way the coin will land, nothing else. He has complete control.

Now, you're going to say that just because he can decide, doesn't mean he must decide. You keep saying that. I say he must decide. Here is the simple proof.

Let us picture God going to flip a coin. He can decide to flip it so it comes up heads, or he can decide to flip it so it comes up tails.

Okay, let us now make an assumption. Let us assume the when God goes to flip the coin he has a third choice, to let the coin itself decide, or randomness, or whatever. Some force in the universe other than God will decide which way the coin will fall. Okay, so God flips the coin and waits in anticipation to see which way it is going to fall. Whoops! We now have a problem. There is something God does not know, namely which way the coin will fall. But God is all-knowing, so there can't be something he doesn't know. Thus we see that our assumption must be invalid. There is no third choice. God must decide.

Just as God cannot create a rock too heavy too lift, he cannot create something he does not know. These are the logical consequences of omnipotence and omniscience.

And why do you keep calling me Dave? My name is Manmander.

-- Manmander (mb@universal.com), March 09, 2001.

"Actually Al, that is precisely where you are missing the point." We'll see. "If God tosses a coin, he does have to decide which way it falls. Think about what it means to flip a coin -- you toss it into the air, end over end, and see which side lands up. Now picture God flipping a coin. Before he flips the coin he can see which side will land up. But He also -- and here is the key -- can decide which side lands up. As He goes to flip the coin He sees which side will land up. He can alter the toss slightly and cause the coin to land with the other side up. He tosses the coin, so He decides which way the coin will land, nothing else. He has complete control." That's where the assumption comes in. He CAN decide. He doesn't "decide".

"Now, you're going to say that just because he can decide, doesn't mean he must decide. You keep saying that. I say he must decide. Here is the simple proof." Well, no, but let's look at it.... "Let us picture God going to flip a coin. He can decide to flip it so it comes up heads, or he can decide to flip it so it comes up tails."

Yep.

"Okay, let us now make an assumption. Let us assume the when God goes to flip the coin he has a third choice, to let the coin itself decide, or randomness, or whatever. Some force in the universe other than God will decide which way the coin will fall. Okay, so God flips the coin and waits in anticipation to see which way it is going to fall."

NO!!!!!!!

Dave, He KNOWS which way it will fall. He is outside time, so there is no anticipation.

You say you accept "observation does not equal causation"---but your very words show you DON'T believe that. You say you will allow a third force to act on it---then it is that third force that "decides" WHETHER GOD KNOWS THE OUTCOME OR NOT!!!

Someday---I hope--you'll get it.

"Whoops! We now have a problem. There is something God does not know, namely which way the coin will fall." That's ridiculous. A Being outside of Time could see the end of all things. It is not implied or even likely from your previous descriptions. It is YOU who is making an unwarranted assumption--- that a third force acting on it would make God unable to see the results in the future, OR that observation implies causation.

" But God is all-knowing, so there can't be something he doesn't know."

Right, and then you ruin it with.... "Thus we see that our assumption must be invalid. There is no third choice. God must decide."

That's total balderdash. It is the third force that decides, and God's foreknowledge of the choice does not make it God's decision, but that third force's acting on it. Again, PLEASE try to understand. You give lip service to "observation does not equal causation" but your every statement above says you--mistakenly---believe observation DOES equal causation.

"Just as God cannot create a rock too heavy too lift, he cannot create something he does not know."

*Sigh* Again. Knowledge---even omniscience---does not equal casuation. I grant you He knows it. I do not grant He personally decides every cause that acts on you, or through you---for instance, your own free will.

" These are the logical consequences of omnipotence and omniscience." Unfortunately, there is nothing logical about it. Again---even if God knows beforehand exactly what will happen---unless He uses some force to act upon the event---He did not cause it.

It's an unwarranted assumption. You have yet to prove it, or even make it sound reasonable. Foreknowledge does not equal causation or determination.

"And why do you keep calling me Dave? My name is Manmander."

Must have been an intersting Christening, Dave.---Al

-- Al Schroeder (aschroeder@nashville.com), March 09, 2001.

Well, Al, it looks like Manmander has packed it in. And just when he finally had you nailed, too. In your latest reply you have employed circular reasoning. You admit that God could not even randomly flip a coin without some mysterious "third force." But God created the universe and everything in it. If He can't even create a coin that flips randomly how is He supposed to have created this mysterious "third force?" He could no more lift himself by his bootstraps.

I also notice you resurrected your "observation does not equal causation" mantra. Why do you keep doing that? God is NOT merely observing us. HE CREATED US!!!! HE KNOWS THE FUTURE!!! HE IS ALL POWERFUL!!! That's one heck of a lot more than "observing." In fact, there is no need for God to observe, he already knows.

-- Dave Van (fancypants@yoyo.com), March 14, 2001.

"Well, Al, it looks like Manmander has packed it in."

If you say so...Dave.

"And just when he finally had you nailed, too. In your latest reply you have employed circular reasoning." No.

"You admit that God could not even randomly flip a coin without some mysterious "third force.""

That's an odd reading. I said it's possible that a third force could act on it. I didn't say He couldn't flip a coin without it.

"But God created the universe and everything in it. If He can't even create a coin that flips randomly how is He supposed to have created this mysterious "third force?""

The same way programmers can introduce random elements into video games and computer games, to make them act in ways not originally programmed?

Quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg principle come to mind....

"He could no more lift himself by his bootstraps."

Or do what a relatively untalented computer programmer could do?

"I also notice you resurrected your "observation does not equal causation" mantra."

With reason. You...I mean Manmander...keep on falling into the same trap. Witness.

"Why do you keep doing that? God is NOT merely observing us."

Oh? Good to know.

"HE CREATED US!!!!"

Indeed. But does that mean that our every step is preplanned---by Him? Neither you nor Mamander have proved that.

"HE KNOWS THE FUTURE!!!"

So? Knowledge doesn't equal causation either.

"HE IS ALL POWERFUL!!!"

And He doesn't necessarily have to use that power.

"That's one heck of a lot more than "observing.""

And a heck of a lot less than predetermining.

"In fact, there is no need for God to observe, he already knows."

Is it your thesis then, that knowledge equals causation?

If I bring a pizza into the house, I know Eric is going to indicate he wants me to cook it.

Have I caused him to do so? I brought the pizza in the house, but I didn't make him respond so.

Does my foreknowledge that he WILL act that way, rob him of his free will?

Of.

COURSE.

Not.

--Al

-- Al Schroeder (aschroeder@nashville.com), March 14, 2001.

Al, please don't take offense, but you could benefit with some training in logic. Manmander has claimed:

if (A and B and C) then D
or
(A ^ B ^ C) => D.

In your counterargument you keep asserting A does not imply D, or B does not imply D, as if it somehow disproves the original assertion.

Consider the following example:
IF (I have a nickel) AND (I have a dime) THEN (I have 15 cents).

It doesn't do you any good to argue, "well, if you have a nickel that doesn't mean you have 15 cents," or "just because you have a dime doesn't mean you have 15 cents." Those points are obvious, and they do not disprove the original assertion.

Keeping the above example in mind, consider this sentence:
IF (God is all-knowing) AND (GOD is all-powerful) AND (God created us) THEN (we cannot have free will)

It doesn't do you a bit of good to say "Just because he's all-knowing doesn't mean we have no free will" or "just because he's all-powerful doesn't mean we have no free will." That is not a productive counterargument. Of course not! It's only when you consider the nickel AND the dime that you have 15 cents.

If you examine your arguments above, you'll see that you make this basic logical error over and over and over again. (eg. "observation does not equal causation" or "foreknowledge does not equal causation")

-- Dave Van (fancypants@yoyo.com), March 19, 2001.

"Al, please don't take offense, but you could benefit with some training in logic."

*Giggle* That's odd, considering how many theologians and logicians have been in this argument. Maybe you should study a little history of philosophy. I would pay particular attention to St. Thomas Aquinas and his successors.

"Manmander has claimed: "if (A and B and C) then D "or "(A ^ B ^ C) => D." Yet he has not demonstrated---nor have you, DAve---that A and B and C equals D.

"In your counterargument you keep asserting A does not imply D, or B does not imply D, as if it somehow disproves the original assertion."

The burden of proving the assertion is yours and mamander's,Dave.

"Consider the following example:

"IF (I have a nickel) AND (I have a dime) THEN (I have 15 cents)." But that's not an argument on the same order at all, Dave.

"It doesn't do you any good to argue, "well, if you have a nickel that doesn't mean you have 15 cents," or "just because you have a dime doesn't mean you have 15 cents." Those points are obvious, and they do not disprove the original assertion."

It's also a straw argument, Dave. You're asking me to assert that omiscience and ominipotence and creation precludes free will. That is by no means on the same level of "obviousness" as the example above.

"Keeping the above example in mind, consider this sentence: IF (God is all-knowing) AND (GOD is all-powerful) AND (God created us) THEN (we cannot have free will)"

Which doesn't follow. I might as well say, because I'm brown-haired and brown-eyed, it must be Thursday. Neither the combination of God creating us, of being omniscient and omnipotent, precludes us from making our own decisions.

The onus is on you, to provide the necessary links. You haven't yet.

"It doesn't do you a bit of good to say "Just because he's all- knowing doesn't mean we have no free will" or "just because he's all- powerful doesn't mean we have no free will." That is not a productive counterargument. Of course not! It's only when you consider the nickel AND the dime that you have 15 cents."

But you have not answered the question: what if God takes into account our own decisions---of our own free will---into the sum total of what happens in the universe?

You have not proved that D followed A, B, and C.

"If you examine your arguments above, you'll see that you make this basic logical error over and over and over again. (eg. "observation does not equal causation" or "foreknowledge does not equal causation")"

No, Dave. If you'll examine the above arguments, you'll find I'm right where I always am...waiting for someone to demonstrate that omnipotence, omniscience, and creation, even taken all together--- negate free will.

I'm still waiting.

---Al.

-- Al Schroeder (aschroeder@nashville.com), March 19, 2001.

Al, you were adamently agreed that God could not create a rock too heavy for Himself to lift. That the answer is no is easily proven using symbolic logic.

Okay then, consider the following proof against free will.

(A) Axiom #1 - Omniscience - God is all knowing
(B) Axiom #2 - Omnipotence - God is all powerful
(C) Axiom #3 - God created the universe and all that is in it.

Theory: I have free will.

In 1 minute I will write down a number between 1 and 1000. Does God know what this number will be? By Axiom #1 we know that he does.

By Axiom #3, God created the universe. At the time He created the universe, did God know what number I would write down? Again by Axiom #1, yes, He did.

Okay, I just wrote down the number: 555. So it turns out God created a universe in which I would write down the number 555. Could God have created a universe in which I wrote down the number 557? 559? How about 751? By Axiom #2, the answer is, "of course." He is all powerful. He could have created any universe He wanted.

So when God decided what sort of universe He would create, He also decided what number I would write down.

God chose what number I would write down.

Now, the above constitutes a proof all on its own, but let me prove it again by contradiction, since I already know precisely what your fallacious counterargument will be. So:

1. Assume that when God created the universe (by Axiom #3) he decided to leave a decision for later. 2. By Axiom #2 He is all-powerful, so he can leave the decision for later, right? But if he leaves the decision for later, then at the time of Creation he is not all-knowing -- there is something he doesn't know, namely what number I will write down. This contradicts Axiom #1, and thus proves our assumption is false. Again we must conclude that God had to choose at the time of creation.

Since God has already chosen, it is impossible for me to choose also. Thus, I have no free will, it is a mere illusion.

The above proof is airtight. Point out the flaw. You cannot do so without ignoring one of the Axioms. That is the problem with every one of your counterarguments -- you ignore one of the Axioms.

-- Dave Van (davevan01@hotmail.com), March 20, 2001.

"Al, you were adamently agreed that God could not create a rock too heavy for Himself to lift. That the answer is no is easily proven using symbolic logic. "Okay then, consider the following proof against free will. "(A) Axiom #1 - Omniscience - God is all knowing "(B) Axiom #2 - Omnipotence - God is all powerful "(C) Axiom #3 - God created the universe and all that is in it." Okay. "Theory: I have free will." Again, okay. "In 1 minute I will write down a number between 1 and 1000. Does God know what this number will be? By Axiom #1 we know that he does." Right. "By Axiom #3, God created the universe. At the time He created the universe, did God know what number I would write down? Again by Axiom #1, yes, He did." Again, right. "Okay, I just wrote down the number: 555. So it turns out God created a universe in which I would write down the number 555. Could God have created a universe in which I wrote down the number 557? 559? How about 751? By Axiom #2, the answer is, "of course." He is all powerful. He could have created any universe He wanted." And that is JUST WHERE you make your mistake. Could God have created a universe where you wrote down a different number? Of course. It could have been forced or even suggested by any number of means. Could God have created a universe where He had NO INFLUENCE on your answer whatsoever? Where you are free to make up your own mind about it, where He brought no influence whatsoever to bear on the same? THINK before you answer, Dave. The answer is---from #2---again, "Of course". "So when God decided what sort of universe He would create, He also decided what number I would write down." No. Again. He knew what the number was. He COULD have forced the issue in any number of ways. He could also, as it were, leave it alone, and leave the decision to you---and take YOUR (totally independent) decision into account to the sum total of creation. As a built-in variable element can contribute to a really good art effect.... "God chose what number I would write down." I'm sorry, but that's a classical that-does-not-NECESSARILY-follow. Just because He could create universes that would force you to choose another number---does not remotely prove that He created this universe where you would have no other choice than to pick that number. Even if it was foreseen, the choice remains---with you. "Now, the above constitutes a proof all on its own," Forgive me, but I don't think constructing such proofs were your strong point in school... "... but let me prove it again by contradiction, since I already know precisely what your fallacious counterargument will be. So: "1. Assume that when God created the universe (by Axiom #3) he decided to leave a decision for later." Or not to decide at all, but let things take their course.... "2. By Axiom #2 He is all-powerful, so he can leave the decision for later, right?" Boy, could you use a good reading of Thomas Aquinas. " But if he leaves the decision for later, then at the time of Creation he is not all-knowing -- there is something he doesn't know, namely what number I will write down." *Sigh* Again. Knowledge is not causation. " This contradicts Axiom #1, and thus proves our assumption is false. Again we must conclude that God had to choose at the time of creation. " It means nothing of the sort. Suppose I build an artistic exhibit of colored sands. Suppose I put some ants in it, to build tunnels in same, and then incorporate their tunnels into the overall artistic theme. I, as the artist, did not choose which way the ants tunnelled,although the tunnels are an important part of the finished creation, and voluntarily introduced the ants into them. The ants with the tunnels are us with our free will. The finished artistic creation mirrors the finished Creation as foreseen by God. But in no case does the Creator---whether Artist or God---force the way the tunnels or free will goes. "Since God has already chosen, it is impossible for me to choose also. Thus, I have no free will, it is a mere illusion." *Sigh* Again. God takes into account the choice of your free will (which He foresees) into the sum total of creation. "The above proof is airtight." It's a sieve. "Point out the flaw." I have. It's big enough to drive a truck through. "You cannot do so without ignoring one of the Axioms." No, you cannot make your argument without making this error in logic-- -that the ability to choose means that one has used that ability. God could make every one of our decisions for us. He doesn't. "That is the problem with every one of your counterarguments -- you ignore one of the Axioms." Dave, PLEASE understand. The ability to be able to force someone does not mean you do. Okay? It is that which you have to prove...and which you haven't. --Al

PS. Despite axiom #2, there are some things God cannot do, omnipotent or not---which you would know if you read Aquinas. I highly recommend him.

-- Al Schroeder (aschroeder@nashville.com), March 20, 2001.

"Al, you were adamently agreed that God could not create a rock too heavy for Himself to lift. That the answer is no is easily proven using symbolic logic.

"Okay then, consider the following proof against free will. "(A) Axiom #1 - Omniscience - God is all knowing "(B) Axiom #2 - Omnipotence - God is all powerful "(C) Axiom #3 - God created the universe and all that is in it."

Okay. "Theory: I have free will."

Again, okay.

"In 1 minute I will write down a number between 1 and 1000. Does God know what this number will be? By Axiom #1 we know that he does."

Right.

"By Axiom #3, God created the universe. At the time He created the universe, did God know what number I would write down? Again by Axiom #1, yes, He did."

Again, right.

"Okay, I just wrote down the number: 555. So it turns out God created a universe in which I would write down the number 555. Could God have created a universe in which I wrote down the number 557? 559? How about 751? By Axiom #2, the answer is, "of course." He is all powerful. He could have created any universe He wanted."

And that is JUST WHERE you make your mistake.

Could God have created a universe where you wrote down a different number?

Of course. It could have been forced or even suggested by any number of means.

Could God have created a universe where He had NO INFLUENCE on your answer whatsoever?

Where you are free to make up your own mind about it, where He brought no influence whatsoever to bear on the same?

THINK before you answer, Dave.

The answer is---from #2---again, "Of course". "So when God decided what sort of universe He would create, He also decided what number I would write down."

No. Again. He knew what the number was. He COULD have forced the issue in any number of ways. He could also, as it were, leave it alone, and leave the decision to you---and take YOUR (totally independent) decision into account to the sum total of creation.

As a built-in variable element can contribute to a really good art effect....

"God chose what number I would write down."

I'm sorry, but that's a classical that-does-not-NECESSARILY-follow. Just because He could create universes that would force you to choose another number---does not remotely prove that He created this universe where you would have no other choice than to pick that number.

Even if it was foreseen, the choice remains---with you.

"Now, the above constitutes a proof all on its own," Forgive me, but I don't think constructing such proofs were your strong point in school...

"... but let me prove it again by contradiction, since I already know precisely what your fallacious counterargument will be. So: "1. Assume that when God created the universe (by Axiom #3) he decided to leave a decision for later." Or not to decide at all, but let things take their course....

"2. By Axiom #2 He is all-powerful, so he can leave the decision for later, right?"

Boy, could you use a good reading of Thomas Aquinas.

" But if he leaves the decision for later, then at the time of Creation he is not all-knowing -- there is something he doesn't know, namely what number I will write down."

*Sigh* Again. Knowledge is not causation.

" This contradicts Axiom #1, and thus proves our assumption is false. Again we must conclude that God had to choose at the time of creation. "

It means nothing of the sort.

Suppose I build an artistic exhibit of colored sands. Suppose I put some ants in it, to build tunnels in same, and then incorporate their tunnels into the overall artistic theme. I, as the artist, did not choose which way the ants tunnelled,although the tunnels are an important part of the finished creation, and voluntarily introduced the ants into them. The ants with the tunnels are us with our free will. The finished artistic creation mirrors the finished Creation as foreseen by God. But in no case does the Creator---whether Artist or God---force the way the tunnels or free will goes.

"Since God has already chosen, it is impossible for me to choose also. Thus, I have no free will, it is a mere illusion."

*Sigh* Again. God takes into account the choice of your free will (which He foresees) into the sum total of creation.

"The above proof is airtight."

It's a sieve.

"Point out the flaw." I have. It's big enough to drive a truck through.

"You cannot do so without ignoring one of the Axioms."

No, you cannot make your argument without making this error in logic-- -that the ability to choose means that one has used that ability. God could make every one of our decisions for us. He doesn't.

"That is the problem with every one of your counterarguments -- you ignore one of the Axioms."

Dave, PLEASE understand. The ability to be able to force someone does not mean you do. Okay? It is that which you have to prove...and which you haven't.

--Al

PS. Despite axiom #2, there are some things God cannot do, omnipotent or not---which you would know if you read Aquinas. I highly recommend him.

-- Al Schroeder (aschroeder@nashville.com), March 20, 2001.

Well, its 3 years later.

Can we break this down into component parts.

Hypothesis:

There is free will and no God?

The universe was created from energy, as energy cannot be destroyed, it was in a constant state of being. However potential energy cannot last forever or indeed cannot last at all. With kinetic energy there is motion and time. Ie the big bang, see Stephen Hawkins and those dudes and there white noise that can be recorded on a tape player anywhere (3 degrees of big bang heat that will not cool down). So there was energy that could not exist in no time at all and became kinetic and a few hundred billion years later you get us guys arguing this on the internet.

This 'big bang' theory can only be understood with the concept of dialectical materialism from Karl Marx, see the German Ideology on the Marxist Internet Archive. This theory in its totality negates the notion of a supreme being, who has yet to be observed, which is pretty impressive for a sumpreme being. So before we put the cart before the horse. Electricity has existed since the dawn of time, eventually we could measure it, along with bacteria and radio waves ad infinitum of discoveries. Even the discovery by the Greeks that the world was 'round', the world had to be round to be discovered that it was so. Hence the lack of omnipotence of a sumpreme being, not being able to be qualified in anyway, either observed or measured brings forth a classic conclusion of Occam's Razor and his was not dialectian. Does God exist, simple answer - NO!

The question of freewill is a bit more contentious, ok we have freewill. Enslave a man and they want to be free. Historical materialism. Each epoch brings with it certain social/economic and political conditions. Conditions that shape free will! Being paid more and going on strike is a decision that could be made in the last 200 years, it could not be made prior to the existence of capitalism. The divine right of kings and the demise of absolutism, historic conditions. Alienation of the work place that can lead to suicide, violence, drinking etc. In essence according to Marx we make decisions in conditions not of our own choosing.

-- Rich Stephens (smurf1917@aol.com), October 27, 2004.