By then I was a little annoyed with his cleverness, but admittedly engaged. I didnt know the old mans situation, but he wasnt as feeble-minded as Id first thought. I glanced at my watch. Almost lunchtime. I decided to see where this was heading.
I delivered the package, I answered. That seemed obvious enough.
If the package had no address, would you have delivered it here?
I said no.
Then you would agree that delivering the package required the participation of the package. The package told you where to go.
I suppose thats true, in a way. But its the least important part of the delivery. I did the driving and lifting and moving. Thats the important part.
How can one part be more important if each part is completely necessary? he asked.
Look, I said, Im holding the package and Im walking with it. Thats delivering. Im delivering the package. Thats what I do. Im a package-delivery guy.
Thats one way to look at it. Another way is that both you and the package got here at the same time. And that both of you were necessary. I say the package delivered you.
There was a twisted logic to that interpretation, but I wasnt willing to give in. The difference is intention. If I leave this package here and go on my way, I think that settles the question of who delivered who.
Perhaps it would, he said as he turned toward the warmth. Would you mind throwing another log on the fire?
I picked out a big one. The retiring embers celebrated its arrival. I had the brief impression that the log was glad to help, to do its part keeping the old man warm.
It was a silly thought. I brushed off my hands and turned to leave.
That chair is yours, he said, gesturing to a wooden rocker next to his. I hadnt noticed the second chair.
The old mans face revealed a life of useful endeavor. I had a sense that he deserved companionship and I was happy to give some. My other choice involved a bag lunch and the back of my truck. Maybe there wasnt any choice at all.
I settled into the rocking chair, letting its rhythm unwind me. It was profoundly relaxing. The room seemed more vivid now and vibrated with the personality of its master. The furniture was obviously designed for comfort. Everything in the room was made of stone or wood or plant, mostly autumn colors. It was as if the room had sprung directly from the earth into the middle of San Francisco.
Your Free Will
There has to be a God, I said. Otherwise, none of us would be here. It wasnt much of a reason, but I figured he didnt need more.
Do you believe God is omnipotent and that people have free will? he asked.
Thats standard stuff for God. So, yeah.
If God is omnipotent, wouldnt he know the future?
Sure.
If God knows what the future holds, then all our choices are already made, arent they? Free will must be an illusion.
He was clever, but I wasnt going to fall for that trap. God lets us determine the future ourselves, using our free will, I explained.
Then you believe God doesnt know the future?
I guess not, I admitted. But he must prefer not knowing.
So you agree that it would be impossible for God to know the future and grant humans free will?
I hadnt thought about it before, but I guess thats right. He must want us to find our own way, so he intentionally tries not to see the future.
For whose benefit does God withhold his power to determine the future? he asked.
Well, it must be for his own benefit, and ours, too, I reasoned. He wouldnt have to settle for less.
The old man pressed on. Couldnt God give humans the illusion of free will? Wed be just as happy as if we had actual free will, and God would retain his ability to see the future. Isnt that a better solution for God than the one you suggested?
Why would God want to mislead us?
If God exists, his motives are certainly unfathomable. No one knows why he grants free will, or why he cares about human souls, or why pain and suffering are necessary parts of life.
The one thing I know about Gods motives is that he must love us, right? I wasnt convinced of this myself, given all the problems in the world, but I was curious about how he would respond.
Love? Do you mean love in the way you understand it as a human?
Well, not exactly, but basically the same thing. I mean, love is love.
A brain surgeon would tell you that a specific part of the brain controls the ability to love. If its damaged, people are incapable of love, incapable of caring about others.
So?
So, isnt it arrogant to think that the love generated by our little brains is the same thing that an omnipotent being experiences? If you were omnipotent, why would you limit yourself to something that could be reproduced by a little clump of neurons?
I shifted my opinion to better defend it. We must feel something similar to Gods type of love, but not the same way God feels it.
What does it mean to feel something similar to the way God feels? Is that like saying a pebble is similar to the sun because both are round? he responded.
Maybe God designed our brains to feel love the same way he feels it. He could do that if he wanted to.