From: detchay@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (TONY CHAY)
Subject: Re: Free will -answer to your questions jarek.
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 19:15:00 GMT

In article <dabrowsk.712127245@liveboard10> dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski) writes:
>From: dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski)
>Subject: Re: Free will (from Re: contradictions ( was Re: Alt.Atheism Frequently Asked Questions
>Date: 26 Jul 92 05:07:25 GMT

>In <willimsa.711987119@unix1.tcd.ie> The Phantom Coalminer confirms that
>if someone is omniscient, then he MUST:

>-Jarek:
>>>>Omnipotence does NOT contradict free will. Though omnipotence implies
>>>>omniscience, omniscience does NOT imply that the omniscient being MUST
>>>>immediately know about all events (in the past, present, and future). 
>>>>It only implies that this being IS ABLE to know that. 
>-NEIL MCKINNON:
>>>ominiscient being [...] by definition must know all true propositions.
>>>If you redefine omniscience to circumvent this problem then you in a
>>>sense redefine God [...]
>-The Phantom Coalminer:
>>Omniscience DOES imply that it MUST know all events, for that is inherent
>>in the very definition of the word.  
>>
>Could you guys please prove that omniscience as you want to understand
>it (which, mind you, limits omnipotence) is a more correct description
>of God than omniscience as I understand it? Assume you could ask God a
>question; would you ever be able to find any difference if He answered
>as a must-omniscient being or as a may-omniscient being?

>BTW, I said that I won't reply to this thread, and I kindly asked that
>this information be retained as long as I am being quoted... Please...


>Best wishes,
>           
Jarek


	
It's really very simple Jarek,
				Your definition of omniscience runs into 
several problems.  A may-omniscient being can be anyone who can ( 
ie. it is logically possible for) know any true proposition.  Eg. If; Tony 
has brown hair, is a true proposition then it is logically possible for you 
to know that proposition and every other proposition (no matter how 
difficult it would be to procure this knowledge as long as it is logically 
possible).  You by your own definition of omniscience would be may-
omniscient.  My definition does not have this problem.  

	However to begenerous the above maybe a foray into pedantry.  But 
their are other problems your theory runs into.  Perhaps what you meant was 
that God is able to know any and all propositions at will with no time 
delay.   

	Lets look at what this trip into redifining omniscience by you was 
meant to achieve.  What you are after is a way to allow God be able to know 
all future free actions (thus not limiting his omnipotence) yet retaining 
human free will.  However, you have overlooked one major point.  If it is 
possible to for God to know any future proposition (even if he chooses not 
to) then that future proposition (including free actions) must have a truth 
value ascribed to it.  Thus combine this with the well established Fixity of 
Truth (see Aristotle) you will find that human free will dissapears if it 
has a fixed truth value, as the basic defining feature of free will is that 
it was possible to have done otherwise. [Please if you can't see this, your 
too blinded by your religious conviction to have a rational discussion with]

	Therefore, with both your definition and my definition of 
omniscience the concept of human free will dissapears.  So the aim of your 
redefining omniscience is not met.  However read on and I'll show you how 
you can reconcile free will with omniscience.

	1.  Read the Treatise by Boethius, Book 5 and you will see his 
novel approach of placing god outside time and thus taking away the problem 
of future truth of human free actions.  Note his theory has problems but 
maybe your the man to fix up this promising theory which was written by a 
man in prison awaiting exucution and thus can be excused for not being 
perfect.

	2.  A better approach and one favoured by myself is to deny that any 
future event which is not causally determined can have a truth value 
ascribed to it until the event has occured.  Your now saying 'but that 
limits Gods omnipotence'.  No it doesn't.  It is a well accepted quasi-fact 
that Gods omnipotence (and I would argue omniscience) is not constrained by 
him not being able to perform the logically impossible or being compelled to 
perform the logically necessary.  Gods omnipotence is a contingent 
omnipotence.  He is unable to make two plus two equal five.  He has to make 
bachelors unmarried, so to he cannot know the proposition 'Tony lives in 
U.S.A.' because it is false, this does not limit his omniscience.  God (
contrary to some very dodgy hypothesis by some shonky individuals) is 
constrained by logic.  Thus God not knowing the unknowable (ie. events which 
have not truth value) can still be omniscient and omnipotent.  This is a 
sound theory which runs into only one problem, which maybe you can see a way 
around.  The prophecies in the bible seem to indicate that God does in fact 
know some future free actions (eg. His knowing that one of the members of 
the last supper would betray Jesus; Judas).  So that stuffs up this as a 
defence of the Judeo-christian God, which doesn't worry me cos' I think its 
a crock of shit, but may worry you.

			Yours,
				Tony



 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism