What symbols mean for Wolfe

Daniel Petersen · 26 Nov 2012, 20:58 · from 2012-November.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com (Daniel Petersen)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 20:58:17 +0000
Subject: (urth) What symbols mean for Wolfe
In-Reply-To: <CAJ8=rtia=fm1YUENO4ERD4sNSN0U+BgV91OKrKSfMA2EVO3Djg at mail.gmail.com>
References: <SNT123-W451FC4C52373D803B29A09CF5F0 at phx.gbl>
	<CAJ8=rtia=fm1YUENO4ERD4sNSN0U+BgV91OKrKSfMA2EVO3Djg at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAGB0RZ5OtzjrStLxAibN6HvCUcbGs__1+o7nP=8ucrKFuNir3A at mail.gmail.com>

Well, fellas, I can't get into it now, but there are PhD theologians out
there who see it differently - it's not as cut and dried as you gents are
making it sound.  Omnipotence and Providence might interact with finite
human (libertarian) freedom in very rich ways that are not easy to pin down
in an 'if this, then that' or 1,2,3 format.

E.g. since 1) God's all powerful and 2) our choices would limit his power,
therefore, 3) we have no real (libertarian) choices - that syllogism can be
challenged by, say, better defining premise 1 or rejecting premise 2 as it
stands, or even challenging that the conclusion really follows.

But I really should probably stop talking about this issue until I better
familiarise myself with relevant passages in the Cycle on freedom and
determinism - there's some pretty potent stuff in there as I recall.

-DOJP

On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 6:50 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>wrote:

> Or to put it differently: Both God and Man are absolutely free to act in
> accordance with their nature. However, that nature constrains their
> choices...
>
> Einstein once pondered, "I wonder if God had any choice in making the
> universe."
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> >Dan'l Danehy-Oakes: There's a passage somewhere where Silk wonders
>> whether "free will" is just
>> >the privilege of consenting to what is going to happen anyway.
>>
>> This is in alignment with my own perspective of things. Truly free and
>> independent choice of action
>> is necessarily a limitation on an all-powerful God's power.
>>
>> Conversely, the more aware a person becomes of God's Plan the less
>> freedom of action he/she has.
>>
>> Moreover, a perfect God has no choices at all. There are no forks in the
>> road for God because every
>> choice has a "best" solution and thus God's path is pre-determined,
>> single-track and perfect.
>>
>> Thus free-will..I won't call it an illusion. But it is something which
>> can exist only from a human
>> perspective, not a divine perspective.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Urth Mailing List
>> To post, write urth at urth.net
>> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>



-- 
Daniel Otto Jack Petersen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20121126/7405cf29/attachment.htm>

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net