(urth) resurrecting a 2002 thread that posits an alternative lineage for Sev

[Dan'l Danehy-Oakes]

Frederick, no. God did not "decide" who would be damned/saved; He *knew*
who would be damned/saved. There is a key difference. He creates beings
with free will, but because of omniscience and His position outside of
Time, he knows in advance what they will do and how He will respond to
those actions.

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 7:19 AM, Norwood, Frederick Hudson <
NORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu> wrote:

> I didn't find even a hint of free will in the Bible.  God decided who
> would be damned and who would be saved before he created the universe.
> That doesn't leave much room for free will.
>
> On the other hand, I once published a paper proving that action by an
> effort of will is at least possible, else consciousness would never have
> evolved.  It couldn't contribute to survival and reproduction if it
> couldn't do anything.
>
> Rick Norwood
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Gerry Quinn
> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 9:48 AM
> To: The Urth Mailing List
> Subject: Re: (urth) resurrecting a 2002 thread that posits an alternative
> lineage for Sev
>
>
> On 07/10/2014 14:58, Lee wrote:
> > I'd add to that the paradox of Free Will. How can an all-powerful,
> > all-knowing Creator construct every molecule of a human being and
> > claim to not know what that human being will do when faced with
> > temptation?
>
> Does He claim that?
>
> > I am not at all religious myself. But I know Gene Wolfe is. So when I
> > enter his worlds and try to understand them, unlike the real world, I
> > have to become something of a Christian and take leaps of faith and
> > accept essential contradictions and otherwise become a bit religious.
> > I think that is necessary when you are trying to understand a
> > fictionally created world. Intent and meaning become more important
> > than logic and science. For the natural world, I think science works
> > better.
>
> The same problem arises in science.  As far as we know scientifically, a
> robot with a computer brain could - and perhaps soon will - be
> manufactured.  This robot may have a determinate programming, such that we
> can predict by simulation how he will respond to any stimulus.  Yet we know
> of no 'scientific' reason why he should not have free will just as much as
> we do.
>
> [You could put a random number generator based on quantum decisions in his
> brain to make him sometimes unpredictable on principle.  But making him act
> erratically for no good reason hardly enhances his free will!]
>
> See also Newcomb's Paradox.
>
> - Gerry Quinn
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>



-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20141009/59835b81/attachment-0002.htm>