I know you quoted it, but did you read when I said

>Of course, as you note, events that are now past cannot be changed

I said that to prevent people from thinking that I believed that situations of this sort:

> 1) Alice is in a bad situation and needs to get out of it.
> 2) God, knowing that step 4 will happen, intervenes and helps Alice out of it.
> 3) The situation is resolved in Alice's favor.
> 4) Alice prays that God gets her out of the sticky situation she was in (and has already been gotten out of).
>

were in any way possible. For one to pray about an event, it must happen for one to know of it, and it (the event) cannot then be removed without paradox. But you'll notice that I explicity denied that possibility. What I was in fact saying was more particular, namely:

>it is technically possible that one's prayers now could have been used already to affect events that are now resolved.

Later, when you say:

> Do you see the ludicrousness of that? Why would you possibly pray for events to come out the way they already have?? By intervening *before* a prayer is made (even though it will happen), God is removing the impetus for a person to pray for his help.

you make a good point, but it does not contradict what I said. Perhaps, because I described the situation so broadly, it could be implied (in the normal sense) that I meant something of the sort. But I did explicity deny this idea, and, if one assumes that I can be in some way consistent, I must have meant something other than what you took me to have meant.

In analyzing what I said, you conflated "affect" with "eliminate". I did not imagine some person praying that things work out as they did (because that is pointless), or someone praying that some particular event that has happened be changed so that it did not (because it would lead to the paradox you spoke of). I meant merely that the prayers of humans are one of many things used by God to determine the course of events, and that these prayers are in no sense limited in what they can affect by when they are prayed.

But perhaps I can come up with an example that might make sense to you, a non-paradoxical example. Imagine that you have a son (I don't know whether you do, the terms are randomly attributed). Your son is on a trip to the north pole, because he is an itinerant explorer and loves danger. Your son then gets on the plane to fly home, his expedition a success.

Imagine further that your son is on the plane, headed home, and that the plane is going to crash, killing your son. Like the sun rising tomorrow, the plane crash and your son's death are "present in their causes", meaning only that if nothing intervenes, the events will take place.

You, being a pious man (unless you are a woman), trust in God and pray for your son's safety. For whatever reason (busy schedule, loss of memory, or whatever) you have forgotten to pray for your son's safety. You remember, and pray for God to protect your son.

Now, imagine also that your prayers are said after the plane has already crashed. Your son, however, does not die, because God intervenes on his (and your) behalf. Though your prayers are post-crash, the event "already present in its causes", that is, your son's death, was prevented by God because of your prayers. The timeline in the world works like this:

1.Your son gets on the plane.
2. The plane crashes.
3. God intervenes to save your son.
4. You pray for your son's safety.

God's timeline is like this:
"Your son is getting on the plane" and "the plane is now crashing" and "you are praying for your son's safety" and "God is saving your son from death". All times are, for God, now. At least, that is the best approximation of what God's experience is like. I think that it is something altogether outside our experience, but because I could not describe that, "all times are now for God" is the best I can do. No paradox here, that I can see. You are not praying to eliminate an event that has already happened, but you are praying for something that has, for you, already taken place, which you are nonetheless able to affect because of God's use of your prayers.

"Affect", in this case, is only meant that way, and excludes particular effects of the sort you mention.


> Stephen

fr"hopes he doesn't have to get into a discussion of middle knowledge"um