On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 09:06:39AM -0800, Chris Olson - SunPS <Chrisf.Olson at Sun.COM> wrote: > > While I agree with the sentiment that God has a lot of hard > > questions to answer, taking responsibility for his creations is > > not on the same level. Are you responsible for the actions of > > your children once they reach adulthood and attain free will? > (Sorry for the delay in responding. I haven't been > near my email in a few days...:) > Are you saying that children have no free will until > they reach adulthood? I'd have to disagree with that. Not at all; I was in fact trying to sidestep that whole argument. I tend to think that kids have more free will than typically given credit for, and rather dislike the trend towards holding parents responsible for their kid's deliberate acts; yet I don't want to go so far as to say that the parents should have no blame when their child goes bad, as their raising may well have contributed. > Also, I think absolute creation is different than procreation. > I also think that, if God (of the Christian persuasion) makes > everything happen for a reason, and has control over everything > in the universe, then yes, he is responsible. I do not have > absolute control over my child's destiny. I cannot say "You will > hit your head on the sofa today". God (according to some) can. Can does not mean "actually does". While an omnipotent God COULD control everything that happens, and doing so would in fact make him responsible for it, the whole "free will" argument is that he does not cause things to happen. It's "could intervene, does not" rather than "direct cause". > Which brings up the whole free-will compared to predeterminism theory, > and how the two (in my mind) are not compatable. One cannot have > them both (if it's predetermined, how can you have a choice?). You must ponder this, grasshopper. How can you become enlightened without proper pondering? The answer, in any case, is simple: think of all the things you do, day in and day out, to predict what happens next. Avoiding other cars while driving, avoiding other people while walking, even just knowing who you will see at work or school or home. Those are all knowing, to a certain degree, but not removing the choice of the participants. The other answer is to postulate a God who is outside of time -- that is, the entirety of time is visible and accessible in a non-linear fashion. Again, no removal of choice; perception is not causation. -- Matthew Hunter (matthew at infodancer.org) Public Key: http://matthew.infodancer.org/public_key.txt Homepage: http://matthew.infodancer.org/index.jsp Politics: http://www.triggerfinger.org/index.jsp