From: jeon@milton.u.washington.edu (Sangyong Jeon)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Oh no, not again
Date: 30 Jul 92 12:07:07 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Jul29.225043.1@acad2.alaska.edu> atdhb@acad2.alaska.edu writes:
>In article <Bs6tKq.J98@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, tpe36878@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
(Mr. Mensa ) writes: 

>> isn't the professor
>> perfectly free to put this question on the exam? Why does our
>> knowing that it 
>> is going to be there make it imperative that it be there? I don't see how a
>> prior knowledge of an a person's action strips that person of his/her free
>> will. Maybe I just didn't get the point of everybody's criticism, either.
>> 
>> 
>> 		keep thinking--it's what keeps us all sane
>> 		thomas ehardt
>> 		tpe36878@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
>> 
>
>    Thomas:  I don't believe you've quite got the concept--after all, the
>    professor _could_ change his mind, and you're omniscience would be
>    shown to be not omni at all.
>
>    Don 

Thanks Don. Good point.

Allow me recap the arguments so far why omni-something eventually runs
into trouble with logic.
For those with no patience, the conclusion is

...Therefore, logically, omniscince and free will is incompatible.

To the atheists who had patience to read this far, this road will not
lead to further denial of all kinds of deity. Some limited but
powerful being is still a logical possibility. But if that is the case,
fear not, for that being has to be bound by logic and using logic
we must be able to defy it.

To the also patient theists, would you now stop saying omniscinece and
free will can co-exist ? ....

Here are the main arguments:

Suppose A is omnipotent, meaning A can do anything, EXCEPT for the
violation of the logical consequences. The last condition is crucial,
for if it is not imposed, no logical conclusion is binding.

Provided all the above, a contradiction easily arises, such as A cannot
make a box so strong A cannot break it open, and variations thereof.
This is a contradiction because A cannot do something after all.
Thus, either omnipotence cannot exist or if it exists, it must be able
to violate the consequence of the logic.

In the case of the logic violating omnipotence, no discussion is
possible. Either you believe, or you don't. And there is no way to
prove anything because, nothing is binding, even the logic.

In the case of no omnipotence, that does not necessarily
mean there does not exist something of someone that can do almost
anything except those things that limit him/her/it-self.
If our hypothetical A is that sort of being, A can certainly create
the physical universe, either let it go its own course, or constantly
intervene or sometimes intervene.
Also, creating heaven and hell is in A's power.
Thus, non-existence of omnipotence does not necessarily exclude the
deity described in Christianity, etc.
But also note that this kind of deity is bound by the laws of logic.
And if you throw in the great Free Will, it starts run into trouble
with logic.

Now, omniscience about human is certainly in the power of our somewhat
limited A, though A may not know all about A itself ("If you know what
you will do next, how can you change your mind?" sort of thing.).
Think of A as an ultimate fortune teller.
Let me ask this A whether I will go to hell or heaven.

If A says either hell or heaven, my action has no influence on where I
am going. Thus, even if I have free will, it is of no use.

Suppose A says, that depends on your action now. Then, I should
ask, what action will I take? If A says, there are several possible
moves you can make, such, such and such.

Then I should ask, well, do you know which one of those I'll make?

Suppose A says yes. Then, again, I have no choice in my action to
improve my chances for going to heaven, after all.

Some thread of discussions dealt with how God's knowledge of
whether I'll be saved or not does not mean that I have no free will.
In those discussions, God is playing the role of our ultimate
fortune teller. Somebody said, God can CHOOSE to know my fate or not
to. Therefore you have free will if he does not choose to see your
future. Let me give an example why that is illogical. Suppose you
are reading a horror novel, you can either choose to take a peek at
the ending first or wait until you arrive at the end by reading from
the first page on. The point is the character's fate in that novel is
in no way influenced by your action of taking a peek at the end.
Somebody has already written the end. It does not have to be you who
wrote the book, all that matters is that somebody did, and the
character in the book has no saying what he will do next or what will
befall on him next.

It is not the action of knowing that abolishes the free will, the
mere possibility of knowing your ACTUAL future is adequate to get rid
of any chance of real free will.

Now suppose A says, no, I don't know which action you will take.
Then A is not omniscient after all. If you can accept the free will
plus the non-omniscient deity, fine. As long as free will is concerned,
you are trouble free.

There is another logical possibility. A can say, the action you will
take depends on the action you will take just before that and those
are such, such and such, ad infinitum. 
Also in this case, I have free will, but A does not really know
whether I will go to hell or heaven. So, A is not omniscient after
all.

Therefore, logically, omniscince and free will is incompatible.

To the atheists who had patience to read this far, this road will not
lead to further denial of all kinds of deity. Some limited but
powerful being is still a logical possibility. But if that is the case,
fear not, for that being has to be bound by logic and using logic, 
we must be able to defy it.

To the also patient theists, would you now stop saying omniscinece and
free will in the same sentence ?

Jeon
Newsgroups: alt.atheism