Post Edited (MephEternal) : 8/26/2005 1:34:29 AM (GMT-5)

If I could go back and do it all over again, I WOULDN'T have done it, knowing what I know now."

I assume that "knowing what I know now" doesn't refer to "how bad it would be if S obtained" because, as you say, that would be absurd if its assumed that God already knew "how bad it would be if S obtained".

Obviously God knew "how bad it would be" if S obtained.  However, God didn't "know what he knows now".  Beforehand he knew that S might not obtain.  Now he knows that S obtained.   

Post Edited (JET) : 8/26/2005 3:45:34 AM (GMT-5)

From the book of Daniel, chapter 2:

36 “This was the dream. Now we will tell the king its interpretation. 37 You, O king, the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, and the might, and the glory, 38 and into whose hand he has given, wherever they dwell, the children of man, the beasts of the field, and the birds of the heavens, making you rule over them all—you are the head of gold. 39 Another kingdom inferior to you shall arise after you, and yet a third kingdom of bronze, which shall rule over all the earth.

JET: God CAN'T "put himself in that situation, assume that S obtains, and then evaluate whether or not actually knowing those truths and feeling that grief is an acceptable risk." Why not, you ask? Because, once you ASSUME that S obtains, "risk" is not a factor. There's no acceptable or unacceptable risk. There's just the assumption that S obtains. If God assumes that S obtains, its purely a cost/benefit analysis. God (via infinite intelligence) imagines S obtaining and God knows (via omniscience) that S would be a bad result. However, God can't evaluate whether or not its an acceptable risk by assuming S obtains. God can ONLY evaluate the risk if God assumes that S might not obtain.

Tom: I’m not entirely sure I’m following you, JET, but if I am, let me say…

One doesn’t evaluate risk by ‘assuming’ anything about the future. To risk is to expose one’s self to the possibility of some undesirable state of affairs for the sake of the possibility of some desirable state of affairs. What you want can’t be had without risking getting something you don’t want instead. Given that both are contingent (otherwise there’s be no risk from God’s point of view), there is no ‘assuming’ that one will obtain. God doesn’t ‘assume’ that S or not-S is what will occur. All that’s assumed is what is in fact true, either state of affair might/might not occur.

But there’s nothing here that would prevent God’s evaluating the undesired event and determining for himself whether its occurring is ‘tolerable’ or ‘acceptable’ given God’s purposes for creating, or his purposes in appointing Saul king. God’s perfectly capable of foreseeing all the relevant data of possible undesired world X and determining for himself whether or not X’s becoming actual is ‘tolerable’ or ‘acceptable’ given his purposes.

Probability comes into it too. I might judge that desirable state A is worth risking undesirable state C if A has the greater probability of occurring, but not worth risking C if A has the lesser probability of occurring.

And then one’s ‘purposes’ which are what one measures risks against. If my purpose for creating is “to include everyone in the divine dance of love” then a risk by definition is any choice I make that entails the possibility of some individual’s not joining in the dance. I risk when I risk not fulfilling my purpose. That’s the point. But if my purpose is, say, to manifest as many possible aspects of my abilities as I can in order to increase my glory and increase the variety of praise I receive when all these aspects are recognized by others, then a risk would be any action I take that limits the variety of ways in which I will be glorified by others. Very different ways of assessing value and determining risk. But the point is, one’s ‘purposes’ determine what a risk is. Now, what determines whether my taking action T is an acceptable risk or not are two things: (1) just how much does achieving the desired end mean to me (and nobody can answer that but you, or in this case God), and (2) whether or not there exists, at the moment I take action T, one or more other possible actions which yield a greater probability of my fulfilling my purposes.

To ‘regret’ taking action T when what I knew might possibly happen happens means to change my mind about the acceptability of the risk with regard to either or both of (1) and (2).

But maybe the change of mind and emotion involved in the Hebrew nacham is not stricktly speaking, the same thing we’re here calling ‘regret’. I don’t know.

JET: I'm not talking about adding to God's knowlege via the experience. I'm not denying that God could fully anticipate how God would feel if S obtained. I'm denying that how God feels about the possibility is the same as how God feels about the realization of the possibility.

Tom: But if God fully anticipates how God would feel when the undesired possibility is realized, then there’s no room for a rational regret that he ran the risk. God knew he might feel this way, knew he might grieve this much, and he knew that if he felt this way he’d regret creating humanity and destroy them all! What rational basis is there, then, for ‘regret’ when things turn out precisely as you knew they might and approved of as an acceptable risk?

JET: This just sounds like the literal OV hermenuetic that I questioned earlier. My point is that such a literal reading is not necessary or appropriate. We know it makes no sense for an omniscient and infinitely intelligent God to actually regret his own choice.

Tom: Then take me by the hand, JET, step-by-step, and show me how you get to this “figure of speech” reading from the actual words of the Hebrew text. I read Hebrew and I WANT to read it figuratively, but I don’t see how figurative meaning is exegeted. It looks very much to me as if Hasker (and others) looked at the literal reading and concluded, “That doesn’t fit what we already believe.” And that much is OK! Don’t get me wrong. It’s OK to say the literal reading conflicts with what we believe on the basis of other passages to be the case. But then one’s got to unpack the figurative meaning (which brings me to Mephi’s proposed deterministic take and how I might object).

One doesn’t have the right to just—plop—claim that some sentence is a figure of speech because taking it literally screws with one's beliefs. You get the right to investigate and consider whether or not the figurative meaning is plausible. But you have to make that case and not just assume it on the basis of the literal reading’s being incompatible with existing beliefs. And it’s here that I have problems with the claim that “I regret having made humankind upon the earth” is a figure of speech that means no more than “I’m deeply grieved by what human beings have turned themselves into.” Figures of speech are community affairs. They’re established ways of speaking. There ought to be some linguistic, grammatical, cultural, contextual evidence for understanding “S regrets having done X” as a figure of speech for “grief.” And I don’t know of any such evidence.

Calling God our “rock,” “strong tower,” or “refugre” is established in common usage as a way of attributing strength, dependability, and trustworthiness to a person. You can look at Hebrew across the board and argue from usage that “rock” can be used figuratively to attribute strength to someone. But there is no linguistic evidence at all that I know of for “S regrets having done X” being a figure of speech used to express grief at something not even mentioned in the sentence. "How evil people turned out in Noah's day" isn't even mentioned in the sentence. The OBJECT of regret is "God's choice to create." How do manage getting "God's having created humans upon the earth" to mean "humans having ruined themselves and creation"? Given the evidence this is nothing but pure assumption. That doesn’t make it wrong I suppose. I mean, assumptions are sometimes right. Maybe there’s a truck load of Herbrew mss. still buried in Judean caves that’ll bear out such a usage. But for now there simply is no argument for this that is independent of our needing it to be so, and THAT is not entirely honest.

Mephi, I think I addressed just why I would object to your proposed deterministic reading of open passages where changes of mind are attributed to God. (1) Figurative understandings yield vacuous truth claims about God, and (2) such readings claim that God needs to condescend in speaking this way to us in order to “get on our level” so the truth about God be conveyed to us in ways we can grasp. But of course determinists exempt themselves from the need for such condescension, for they obviously DO know the literal ( unanthropomorphicized) truth about God, viz., that he cannot possibly change his mind about anything.

Lastly…

Mephi: [Tom: I can’t be convinced that the author believed God was so uninformed of the risks that he unknowingly took a bad risk thinking it was a good risk and then turned around and repeated his stupidity in taking another risk with another libertarian agent who was, what, a teenager at that time?]

What grounds this bias? For real. What is it? It seems like you're just pulling this out of the sky? How are you NOT just foisting your assumptions onto the author here? Are you just holding on to inerrancy by your fingernails or what?

Tom: Actually, I can be an errantist and STILL argue that what you’re asking us to believe about the authors here is unacceptable. My point was that the author’s being wrong involves more than just his believing that (as you say) God was “1) not infinitely intelligent and 2) sometimes rash in God's decision making.” There’s more the author would have to have believed about God, as is evidenced by how the story is continued by both the author of Genesis and 1Samuel. As I argued, the authors would also have to believe that 3) God is a nitwit and a slow-learner. You have to include the author’s believing in (3) if you are to argue the author was just mistaken here in believing God actually regretting having taken a risk.

Mephi: Since you seem so bent on the text being "true" (whatever that's gonna mean for you), I suppose you'd better take option #3. But I guess this just means that, for you, the "regretting" texts are vacuous about revealing anything about God. How does this help ANYTHING? You'd rather just affirm a text as being functionally meaningless, rather than saying it may be wrong?

Tom: Like I said, I hope there’s a way to affirm the passage meaningfully, making sense of the language, and not have to give up God’s infinite intelligence and goodness. Right now I don’t have a view on the passages. I’m on the journey.

Tom

Post Edited (TGB) : 8/26/2005 6:33:05 PM (GMT-5)

Starkman: When it is said that God "changes His mind," in scripture, the question is, can an omniscient God really change His mind? Well, no, not according to the determinists, but yes, according to OTs. Why? Not because of the presups, necessarily, but because of the manner in which omniscience is to be understood. That doesn't have to be something presupposed by one's theological slant. It's a metaphysical question. For God to NOT be changing His mind in some of times it is said He does is to require an answer as to How God could really change His mind if He already knew He was going to change His mind?  Here again, though, it isn't just a determinist-vs-OT issue. It's a metaphysical and existential matter dealing directly with the nature of understanding omniscience. Exegesis isn't going to help much at this point.

Tom: Yo man. It’s really not about whether or not God can and does change his mind on occasion. God does. No problem there. But some changes of mind are consistent with other things we affirm about God and some changes of mind are inconsistent with those other things. Saying God can and does change his mind doesn’t mean there aren’t some changes of mind that are impossible for God. God can (Jer 18) intend to bless a nation and change his mind if that nation becomes wicked. Or God can intend to judge a wicked nation and then change his mind and intend blessing if that nation repents. No problem. But can God change his mind about his own evaluation and adoption of risk? Can God say, “I know all the possibilities here. Studied ‘em all. Evaluated ‘em all. And you know, I think risking X here is acceptable to me,” and then later, after X occurs, say “I change my mind. It wasn’t worth risking X. I regret ever having risked X.”

Sounds to me like we’re all agreeing that God CAN’T do this. What we’re disagreeing on is whether or not Gen. 6.6. and 1Sam 15.11 actually attribute this sort of regret to God.

Tom

Post Edited (jefscott) : 8/27/2005 11:32:44 AM (GMT-5)

Isa. 59: 15-16

“Ki” is a Hebrew particle that has several usages (“that,” “because,” “indeed”). One Wycliff translator recently finished a 400 page Ph.D. dissertation of this one particle, if you can imagine that. But since Gen. 6.6…

“God nacham THAT (ki) he made humanity on the earth” (“God repented/grieved THAT he made…”)

and 1Sam 15.11

“It nachams me THAT (ki) I have set up Saul to be king”

both appear to be the only time God nachams over some past choice of his own, I thought I’d look at how “ki” is used elswere. I want to correspond with this Wycliff worker as well, but in the meantime check this out:

15 “…and the Lord

saw

and      it displeased him

KI (that) there was no judgment.

16 And he

saw

KI (that) there was no man

and      wondered

KI (that) there was no intercessor…

Here’s my beef with those of you who understand “God regretted that he made humanity” as not having to mean that God actually regretted having taken the risk involved in making humanity. You’re not showing us anything in the text to hang this understanding on. Take me FROM THE TEXT to your view, step by step. The challenge is there. I’m waiting.

In Isa. 59 the particle “ki” introduces the reason why God was displeased. In each case the verb (“saw,” “was displeased,” and “wondered”) is followed by a clause introduced by “ki” which explains/modifies the verb. Now, the same goes for Gen. 6.6. and 1Sam. 15.11. Same construction.

Now, open theists will want to argue that Isa. 59 supports their view that God faces an open future. They argue that it just doesn’t make sense to say a God who either determines or foreknows timelessly that there’ll be no judgment and no intercessor would be displeased at what happens or wonder at what happens. We must understand the words here to be attributing real grief, real displeasure to God over what happened. And we’d also argue that this entails God’s wishing that the events introduced by the KI-clause would no have happened. And we’d be right. The grammar doesn’t leave us many options in Isa. 59. God was displeased that…that what?...that there was no judgment among the people. The that-clause introduces that which God is displeased with. The very displeased has as its object the very state of affairs introduced by the ki-clause. That much is grammar.

This has to hold for the same construction in Gen. 6 and 1Sam. 15.11. The ki-clause of Gen. 6.6 introduces that over which God grieves and unfortunately in the clause under review it is not “how things turned out.” Yes Gen. 6 tells us God was grieved over humanity’s wickedness. I’m not saying he wasn’t. There are in this chapter explicit claims to this effect. But “God regretted that he made humankind on the earth” is not one of them. The that-clause here does not introduce the present wicked state of affairs of Noah’s day as that over which God regrets. It explicitly introduces God’s own choice to create. Period. Same for 1Sam. 15.11.

I would like to see those of you arguing that Gen. 6.6. mean some other than “God regretted having taken the risk to create” attempt to apply your hermeneutic (which I don’t yet understand) to Isa. 59. Now, I don’t think this is exactly parallel to what Mephi’s talking about when he brings in the determinist’s objection that all open passages be read as anthropomorphisms. That’s a bit different and maybe we can talk about that latter.

Jeff: Tom, you had challenged me to take you by the hand and tell you how I get my view. Since the verse makes perfectly good sense, literally, with my view, doesn't it make more sense for you to take ME by the hand and explain to me how you know God has EDF, ETERNALLY? And if it's not necessarily ETERNAL, how could you prove that He had such foreknowledge at the TIME that He "made man?"

Tom: Oh my. Jeff, I haven’t and am not now claiming that the verse at all implies God possesses EDF. Where’d you get that? Now, I don’t see at all how the verse taken literally attributes to God something I’d want to agree with, namely, that God regretted having created humankind on the earth. It just doesn’t fly. It rules out infinite intelligence (which you buy into, so that’s no problem for you; but it is for me), and it makes God out to be somewhat of a slow dunce who can’t learn from past regrets, for he immediately turns around and gets humanity going AGAIN.

I want to comment an earlier exchange we had, Jeff. In blue, I responded to you with:

“I wish I hadn’t bet on horse A” can mean either

     (A)   I wish I had bet on some horse other than horse A.

     or

     (B)   I wish I hadn’t bet at all. (A and B should be blue but I can't get 'em blue!)

The regret of (A) is, I think, consistent with a perfectly informed and evaluated bet.

Thinking on that more, I’d have to say that (A) is not consistent with a perfectly informed and evaluated bet. It’s one thing to wish horse A had won. But that’s to say I wished I bet on horse and it won. If expressed in terms of the text of Gen. 6.6, one would say, “I regret having created a world that turned out this way.” Now this can mean:

(A') I wished I had created some other type of world that excluded the possibility of things getting this bad.

or

(B') I wished I hadn’t created any world at all.

God’s feeling either (A') or (B') is incompatible with what I believe about God.

Jeff: Why couldn't that knowledge have been brainstormed when He needed it - namely, AT or AFTER the Fall?

Tom: Because it would entail God’s not being omniscient. Besides, Jeff, it just makes zero sense to suppose that God would not have needed to know that the entire human project might get as bad as it did in Noah’s day until after having created them. In any case, God doesn’t regret not having known when he created what (on your account) he knew when humans fell (viz., that things might get this bad). God simply regreted having created humanity, which means:

(A')   God regretted created a humanity facing the possibility of becoming this bad.

or

(B') God regretted creating any humanity at all.

What it can’t mean is:

(C)   God regretted not knowing when he created humanity what he later comes to know about humanity.

Greg says the verse means God regretted having created THIS batch of humans. What’s that even mean? On an indeterminist’s metaphysic, God didn’t create THIS batch of humans. He created a much earlier batch who faced the possibility of becoming at this point in time something God would be happy about or something he’d be grieved about. But I assume, as I guess you don’t, that God knew both these possibilities when he created, took them into account, and decided that the unhappy possibilities were worth the risk.

Jeff: After all, that's when WE typically brainstorm about consequences that we need take into account - when circumstances dictate that we NEED to.

Tom: Then God would have no cause for regretting what the text says he regrets, which is not that he didn’t brainstorm well enough after humans fell but that he, God, created.

Jeff: For example, you are NOW brainstorming about possibile ways of taking the Gen. passage. WHY, because you have recently been TAKEN ABACK by it's implications for the OV. Why must God be different?

Tom: Because he’s omniscient and I’m not.

I can appreciate how the literal meaning of the verse doesn’t pose problems for you. You don’t think that God’s choices are always adequately (omnisciently) informed. God regrets his choice to create. He wishes he hadn’t done it. True, he admits after the fact that given what he knew when he created he still create. But what is this but an honest admission that he sometimes makes bad, ill-informed choices, choices he wishes he would never have made?

And consider this, friends. On the literal reading that attributes to God regret over having created, God must STILL today regret having created humankind. And he will forever regret having done so. It’s considerations like these, coupled with God’s immediately repeating the risk he’s just grieved over which compels me to find some grammatically plausible reading of the text that doesn’t imply that God is less than omniscient and a slow learner on the one hand, and which is hermeneutically consistent.

Tom

Post Edited (TGB) : 8/27/2005 1:35:03 PM (GMT-5)

Hey Mephi-

Take a look at the various meanings the Hebrew particle "ki" has. It can variously mean (because, for, that, indeed, AND...though or although). I'm looking at several instances of its functioning as an adversative meaing something like "though." I think you see the advantage here, don't you? God grieves EVEN THOUGH he's the one who created a world that could become so corrupt. That's entirely different. I'd be happy with this if it weren't for the way "ki" is used throughout the passage.

Greg OK’d my posting a bit from a recent email of his on this issue. He said he’d be glad for me to humiliate myself by posting it and so showing all the more clearly how wrong I am! Ha ha ha.

-------------------------

Tom: I honestly don’t know what meaning to give to “I regret buying this car but I don’t regret taking the risk.”

Greg: Can't you think a risk is IN GENERAL worth it, even though [it’s grevious] when the risk turns out differently than you hoped and you regret making THAT PARTICULAR BET? 

Tom: To me these are the same. To buy the car IS to take the risk. To buy IS to risk. How do I regret “having bought” without regretting “having risked”?  

Greg: They're not necessarily exactly the same thing. The concept of "risk" is more general than the concept of buying (and therefore taking a risk on) THIS particular car. Yes, to buy a particular car is to take a risk. And to buy a car that turns out bad is to lose that round of the risk. But a wise person knows that the alternative to not taking risks on cars is to never own a car, and over the long haul (let us assume for the sake of argument) risking on cars is worth it -- though you of course regret risking on a PARTICULAR car that turned out bad (when you could have, and should have, bought that other one that lasted 150.000.) (Of course, the analogy isn't perfect because cars aren't free and we aren't omniscient, etc... But you get the general point... I hope). 

Tom: Now, Greg concedes that God regretted “creating” but doesn’t believe this involves his regretting “having risked in creating.” I’m thinking, what else is there to regret but the risk?

Greg: God doesn't regret metaphysical necessities because they're... well....necessities. You can't create beings with the capacity to love without creating them with the capacity to turn out evil. It’s a metaphysical necessity. When humans turn out evil, a la Gen. 6, God regrets creating THIS BATCH. But he obviously doesn't regret rolling the dice on humans AS SUCH, because he does it again. Yes, he seems to pull back the principle of proportionality a bit by shortening our lives...but its still a risk, and at times God again regrets how the risk turns out (I Sam.15 and many disappointments in Bible), but he keeps on risking.

And…

Greg: I pretend there's no issue here, but I've always seen a potential one. If you take Gen. 6:6 too literally, you run into the sorts of quagmires you're raising. I'm just saying a) there's no grammatical or theological reason to push "regret" THAT literally and THAT far, and b) many theological reasons that don't violate normal grammar NOT to push "regret" that literally and that far.

-------------------------------

Tootaloo!

Tom

Post Edited (TGB) : 8/27/2005 5:22:15 PM (GMT-5)

Tom:  Besides, Jeff, it just makes zero sense to suppose that God would not have needed to know that the entire human project might get as bad as it did in Noah’s day until after having created them.

Jeff:  It only doesn't make sense if you assume, apriori, that God is omniscient.  What if the Father, being powerful enough to handle any conceivable event that occurs in any conceivable creation of His, simply creates with GOOD INTENTIONS, without all the hand-wringing, and then DEALS with bad things as they happen?  How can I prove biblically or philosophically that God isn't like that?  How would that make Him any less wise or benevolent?  Isn't Christ's atonement sufficient to handle any DEGREE of evil that has or might come about?

Tom:  Greg says the verse means God regretted having created THIS batch of humans. What’s that even mean? On an indeterminist’s metaphysic, God didn’t create THIS batch of humans. 

Jeff:  Right.  For Greg's view, it would have to mean that God regretted creating ADAM, particularly, not man as a species.  That might be a possible Hebrew reading, though.

Jeff: After all, that's when WE typically brainstorm about consequences that we need take into account - when circumstances dictate that we NEED to.

Tom: Then God would have no cause for regretting what the text says he regrets, which is not that he didn’t brainstorm well enough after humans fell but that he, God, created.

Jeff:  Right, because the creation of man occurred prior to the Fall, necessarily.  That's why I don't understand your objection.  I'm saying something about what God's NATURE may be like.  If it is Gods NATURE to not anticipate every despicable possibility unrelated to the fulfillment of His promises, God's regret could not be about not brainstorming ENOUGH.  For God cannot regret His own nature.  God can only regret what is within the realm of the possible.  God may have been perfectly willing to endure some suffering for Christ and humans to redeem this particular world rather than destroy it and start over, but not the degree that actually ended up being necessitated.  Nevertheless, He will faithfully fulfill the promise of the Seed in due time.  For FIDELITY is ALSO His nature.  Just like a parent may, at times, regret having had a bad kid, but he/she STILL acts in the interest of that child, regardless.

Tom:  You don’t think that God’s choices are always adequately (omnisciently) informed.

Jeff:  I think they are adequate in the sense that REGARDLESS what happens, God will prevail in His purposes, despite any regret.

Tom:  But what is this but an honest admission that he sometimes makes bad, ill-informed choices, choices he wishes he would never have made?

Jeff:  Bad in what sense?  Ill-informed how?  God has the ABILITY to prevail in His purposes, regardless.  There is no amount of MERE information that will render Him successful in His purposes.  His power and wisdom, alone, are sufficient to that task.  The timing of information acquisition is much less important, so long as it occurs prior to the exercise of wisdom for providential action.

Tom:  And consider this, friends. On the literal reading that attributes to God regret over having created, God must STILL today regret having created humankind.

Jeff:  This claim, too, requires a certain view of God's omniscience.  Maybe God doesn't even consciously think about the regret once He acts in a way to move forward (as He did with the Flood and subsequent repopulation with Noah).  Especially since the regret was OCCASSIONED by past conditions that no longer exist.  Think, for example, of my analogy of the parent above.  The times of regret are temporal.  When the sun comes back up, so to speak, benevolent people put the bad memories out of their mind.  The past is the past.

Tom:  It’s considerations like these, coupled with God’s immediately repeating the risk he’s just grieved over which compels me to find some grammatically plausible reading of the text that doesn’t imply that God is less than omniscient and a slow learner on the one hand, and which is hermeneutically consistent.

Jeff:  My view doesn't imply that God is a slow learner.  I think God can brainstorm fast enough to handle any conceivable situation wisely and benevolently.  The hermeneutics is truly tricky, I'll give you that.  I think you and Meph have made excellent arguments against Doc's view. 

I've been told that I'm WAY to western in my thinking.  I think this subject shows how unwestern I'm willing to be to remain consistent.  The whole omniscience-as-attribute view seems, to me, to be purely a western construct.  But I may be wrong.

Post Edited (jefscott) : 8/27/2005 6:17:27 PM (GMT-5)

Greg:  But a wise person knows that the alternative to not taking risks on cars is to never own a car, and over the long haul (let us assume for the sake of argument) risking on cars is worth it -- though you of course regret risking on a PARTICULAR car that turned out bad (when you could have, and should have, bought that other one that lasted 150.000.) 

Jeff:  This analogy would imply that "over the long haul" God is creating many universes, most of which come out pretty good.  The question is: "Is that to be assumed to make sense of the passage in question?"

Let me say another thing about regret.  It doesn't follow from the fact that God once regretted having made man that He doesn't end up making the existence of the universe "worth it."  If God is interacting dynamically with the world, it may be that the very circumstance which led to His regret also prompted Him to wisely plan new kingdom purposes to MAKE the universe worth it despite those bad circumstances. 

For example, the decision to have saints judge angels may have been a decision that resulted WHEN angels fell.  It need not have been an original intent at the time of creation.  The key, to my mind, to the finite view of God's intelligence is the dynamic nature of God's relationship to His creation.  I just don't know of any philosophical or biblical argument which rules out such a view.

Post Edited (JEE) : 8/27/2005 9:27:17 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (TGB) : 8/28/2005 1:08:10 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (MephEternal) : 8/28/2005 8:00:24 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (jefscott) : 8/28/2005 10:21:05 AM (GMT-5)