A serious logical problem

[R_Daneel]

You are right, accidental necessity does collapse into a-temporality. I’m glad you note this, because RDaneel person does not get this.

Yes, I certainly lost interest because of the inability of some posters to understand that temporal precedence is not the same as causal precedence.

Also “timelessness” or “a-temporality” flatly contradicts any type of “action”, and that cannot be alleviated by using nonsensical phrases like “eternally willed”. Any action without a result cannot be distinguished from non-action. The existence of a result creates a time when the result was not present, and when the result is present - thus introducing a time.

 

[Syntax]

Also “timelessness” or “a-temporality” flatly contradicts any type of “action”, and that cannot be alleviated by using nonsensical phrases like “eternally willed”.

Whoa, slow down and be careful what you are articulating.

First, it is absurd that God causes any of John’s doing X to begin with. God doesn’t cause anything here. In case you haven’t noticed, the topic with which we are dealing has to do with God’s knowledge and human freedom, not God’s **willed creative action **and human freedom. Knowledge doesn’t “cause” anything. Only willed-actions do.

Second, what does the topic of the problem of Divine Foreknowledge and human freedom have to do with God’s* will* anyway?

Third, what exactly is it that God is “willing” here? That John does X? This is false. John wills X. God doesn’t will John’s own willing to do X.

Any action without a result cannot be distinguished from non-action. The existence of a result creates a time when the result was not present, and when the result is present - thus introducing a time.

This is totally convoluted.

Yes, I certainly lost interest because of the inability of some posters to understand that temporal precedence is not the same as causal precedence.

The point is that you are not even understanding the problem at hand. The problem with Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom is not a causal necessity problem. Instead, it involves what is called “accidental necessity” which is a **purely logical entailment **notion, not a causal notion. Here’s the real problem:

If there is a fact of the matter about God’s knowing what will happen, and his knowledge is infallible, then there is a fact of the matter about what happens. This is true because, God’s knowing X **logically entails **that X. So if there is a fact of the matter about a person doing X, then a person could not do not-X no matter how hard he tried.

 

[greylorn]

I will leave you with one little fact: Quantum theory since Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, et al, teaches that time is an illusion. That is to say that modern physics has reached the conclusion that time is not real. I mention this so you do not think the idea has no basis.

The “little fact” you so generously leave us with is drivel.

Time is one of the parameters in all QM formulas. You are arrogating knowledge of physics which you do not own. Name dropping does not cut it. Feel free to apologize to CAF readers.

 

[R_Daneel]

Whoa, slow down and be careful what you are articulating.

First, it is absurd that God causes any of John’s doing X to begin with. God doesn’t cause anything here. In case you haven’t noticed, the topic with which we are dealing has to do with God’s knowledge and human freedom, not God’s **willed creative action **and human freedom. Knowledge doesn’t “cause” anything. Only willed-actions do.

Second, what does the topic of the problem of Divine Foreknowledge and human freedom have to do with God’s* will* anyway?

Third, what exactly is it that God is “willing” here? That John does X? This is false. John wills X. God doesn’t will John’s own willing to do X.

Better read carefully first, before you answer. I am talking about “timelessness” which is nonsense in the first place, and does not solve the problem presented. Temporal precedence and causal precedence are not the same.

This is totally convoluted.

Actually, it is very simple and straightforward. Action without time is an oxymoron.

 

[Syntax]

Better read carefully first, before you answer. I am talking about “timelessness” which is nonsense in the first place, and does not solve the problem presented. Temporal precedence and causal precedence are not the same.

Actually, it is very simple and straightforward. Action without time is an oxymoron.

Are you even READING my posts?? I don’t even mention “timelessness” anywhere! You ignored all of the following points:

(1) God’s knowledge (or any sort of knowledge for that matter) does not have causal powers because knowledge is completely inert just as desires are. Only actions have causal power. And actions come from decisions made by the will, not from knowledge. Knowledge can’t make decisions, only the person by his will can make decisions. So your claim that knowledge has causal power by itself is just an unfounded assumption for which you offer no explanation how this is even possible…
(2) You are still misunderstanding the entire problem of Divine Foreknowledge and human freedom. It has nothing to do with causation, only with knowledge. So all of your points are moot unless you can justify your assumption that knowledge has causal power.

So far, I have the upper hand unless you address all of these points, because quite frankly, you seem very confused about what you’re talking about. You don’t have the intellectual liberty of saying “God’s knowledge causes someone’s actions” without telling everyone how this is even possible! Knowledge is **inert **. Besides, there also exists **probabilistic **causation which undermines your entire thesis. In fact, most scientists don’t think causation is a necessary relation between two events, but only a highly probabilistic relation. So free will is still free.

 

[Chiral]

THANK YOU, Syntax for seeing to the root which I apparently failed to point out in my last post!

…The problem with Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom is not a causal necessity problem. Instead, it involves what is called “accidental necessity” which is a **purely logical entailment **notion, not a causal notion. Here’s the real problem:

If there is a fact of the matter about God’s knowing what will happen, and his knowledge is infallible, then there is a fact of the matter about what happens. This is true because, God’s knowing X **logically entails **that X. So if there is a fact of the matter about a person doing X, then a person could not do not-X no matter how hard he tried.

R Daneel and I have been using the term “cause” to include “logical entailment” or contingency. “Cause” in terms of some event implies time and, as I already stated and so did R Daneel, time is not the issue here, discussing it only leads to greater confusion and misunderstanding.

The “real problem” (to use your phrase above) is actually the inverse of your presented argument. It is not that God’s knowledge logically entails a person choosing X (though that is certainly the case), it is that a person choosing X logically entails God’s knowledge of it! God’s knowledge is thus logically contingent upon the choice of a will not identical with His own. In effect, God’s knowledge is in some sense “caused” by this other entity’s choice (time not entering into it). If that is the case, and if God’s knowledge is indistinguishable from His essence (being divinely simple and unified), then God’s essence is in some way “caused” by, i.e. logically contingent upon, another being! God’s self-necessity goes out the window.

In my previous posts, I have presented suggestions concerning WHY the logical contingency between free choice X and knowledge of it does not entail direct and essential causation, from the points of how the logical contingency is established and questioning what constitutes an essential “property”.

If we stick with this line of discussion, we may be able to keep R Daneel’s interest and also elucidate the logic of the Church’s teaching regarding divine simplicity in the face of human free-will.

Again, THANK YOU Syntax.

 

[R_Daneel]

R Daneel and I have been using the term “cause” to include “logical entailment” or contingency. “Cause” in terms of some event implies time and, as I already stated and so did R Daneel, time is not the issue here, discussing it only leads to greater confusion and misunderstanding.

The “real problem” (to use your phrase above) is actually the inverse of your presented argument. It is not that God’s knowledge logically entails a person choosing X (though that is certainly the case), it is that a person choosing X logically entails God’s knowledge of it! God’s knowledge is thus logically contingent upon the choice of a will not identical with His own. In effect, God’s knowledge is in some sense “caused” by this other entity’s choice (time not entering into it). If that is the case, and if God’s knowledge is indistinguishable from His essence (being divinely simple and unified), then God’s essence is in some way “caused” by, i.e. logically contingent upon, another being! God’s self-necessity goes out the window.

And I thank you for the clear and conscise summary of the problem. Indeed that is the type of proper, logical reasoning, which I was hoping for from the beginning. Now I will be interested in the resolution you can offer.

 

[Chiral]

Yes, I certainly lost interest because of the inability of some posters to understand that temporal precedence is not the same as causal precedence.

R Daneel, I am glad you returned, I thought the OP extremely apt regarding understanding Church doctrine.
I believe at least a few posters to this thread understand the distinction you are trying to make. May I suggest you follow my own and Syntax’s lead and try to avoid the term “cause” by speaking instead in the passive voice using “logically contingent”? This may also help you further analyze and uncover who/what establishes a particular “logical contingency”…

 

[Chiral]

Oh… did you see my post above?
Er… Here, reposted again… Not really an argument, per se, but suggestions for further analysis…

…neurological studies do not show knowledge, they show ACTIVITY. When we love someone, a demonstration is a physical alteration in our brain. It is the same whenever we think, speak, wish, feel, learn, etc. It is important to recognize that these are entirely internal activities - the brain modifies itself, requiring no (name removed by moderator)ut from outside the subject. In other words, the change is self-caused.

Next, notice that every activity listed above requires a grammatical object - something thought, spoken, wished, felt, learned, etc. It is again important to recognize that in these activities, the subject acts upon the object, not the other-way-around. The subject’s action is logically contingent upon an object, but again is self-caused. The words spoken do not logically “cause” the speaking.

Now, what again is knowledge? Mentally internalized information corresponding to some object.
What object? The object of the activity which the subject employed to internalize the information - i.e. learning.
What directly caused the internalized information? The activity of internalizing information is caused by the subject (not the object).
So what causes knowledge? The subject, NOT the object.

But isn’t the knowledge still logically contingent upon the object from which it was acquired? And doesn’t this make it, in some sense, a “cause”?
It could not have been acquired by the subject if it did not exist, but neither did it directly “cause” the subject’s knowledge; therefore, it can only be thought of as an indirect cause? or better a contingent cause!
Contingent on what? The subject! The subject, as knower, establishes the logical contingency between the object and the corresponding knowledge. Neat, huh?

Now, why I find it strange to think of specific points of knowledge as “properties”:

Mentally internalized information is as much a “property” of a subject as any thing said, felt, thought, believed, loved, hated, wished, etc. constitutes a “property” of the subject. Knowledge is the object of an internal activity. It, like the object of any other internal activity, is essentially distinct from the subject (except when identical). Grammatically, we require a transitive verb to discuss the relationship between the “knower” and what is known. These are entirely relational. If such relational ideas constitute “properties” then so can ANY adjective, be it word or phrase.
In my thinking, “properties” (or perhaps I should specify them as “essential” properties) are those which can be described without the use of or reference to another noun or object:
“Chiral thinks, knows, lives, breathes, eats, loves, hates…” and so forth. These constitute properties. As gerunds, the properties are “thinking, knowing, living, breathing, eating, loving, hating,” etc.

Let me know if this helps, if I am way off, if you see a contradiction, or just what you think about the above.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Yes, I certainly lost interest because of the inability of some posters to understand that temporal precedence is not the same as causal precedence.

if one is only interested in posters who agree with ones own ideas, then debate becomes little more than an echo chamber. pointless.

if that position cannot withstand vigorous debate, then it is likely to be false. one cannot protect it by ignorinng counter arguments. that just demonstrates that it is a cherished belief and not a rational position that should be taken seriously by other people.

Also “timelessness” or “a-temporality” flatly contradicts any type of “action”, and that cannot be alleviated by using nonsensical phrases like “eternally willed”. Any action without a result cannot be distinguished from non-action. The existence of a result creates a time when the result was not present, and when the result is present - thus introducing a time.

change or “action” doesnt require the imaginary “time”, as previously demonstrated by the theoretical physicist Julian Barbour. this is a position supported by physics. and what is said to be the most likely route to a grand unified theory of the quantum and einsteinian universes, in light of the wheeler-dewitt equations…

im surprised to see you buck that trend, and in support of a concept having no empirically observable evidence at that.

youtube.com/watch_popup?v=WKsNraFxPwk#t=19

the existence of a result or “effect” needs only a cause. this cause and effect is what constitutes the change we see around us.

we simply call specified intervals of change, “time”. it can be anything from the shadow on a sundial, the sand in an hourglass, spring driven gears in wind up clock, or the change in energy states of cesium as its bombarded with specific frequencies of photons.

but these changes dont create “time” anymore than a measuring tape creates the concept of an “inch”. we could call any amount of distance on a tape measure an inch, and in the same way we could call any amount of change a “second” it is only arbitrarily set at 9,192,631,770 cesium-133 oscillations. we could just as easily define a “second” as the amount of time it takes my little nephew to pedal his tricycle across the living room.

 

[R_Daneel]

R Daneel, I am glad you returned, I thought the OP extremely apt regarding understanding Church doctrine.
I believe at least a few posters to this thread understand the distinction you are trying to make. May I suggest you follow my own and Syntax’s lead and try to avoid the term “cause” by speaking instead in the passive voice using “logically contingent”? This may also help you further analyze and uncover who/what establishes a particular “logical contingency”…

The term “logically contingent” is good, though, truth be told, I see it as a synonym for causation. But that is not a problem for me. I will read your other post, too, naturally.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Action without time is an oxymoron.

not in the least, change, what you refer to by “action” doesnt require “time” to occur. it is this action/change paradigm from which we derive the concept of time. not the other way around. thats almost literally putting the cart before the horse.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Are you even READING my posts?? I don’t even mention “timelessness” anywhere! You ignored all of the following points:

(1) God’s knowledge (or any sort of knowledge for that matter) does not have causal powers because knowledge is completely inert just as desires are. Only actions have causal power. And actions come from decisions made by the will, not from knowledge. Knowledge can’t make decisions, only the person by his will can make decisions. So your claim that knowledge has causal power by itself is just an unfounded assumption for which you offer no explanation how this is even possible.

sweeet!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

time is not the issue here, discussing it only leads to greater confusion and misunderstanding.

apparently it is, what you are calling “logical contingency”, is in form, accidental necessity, and that just collapses back to my position.

The “real problem” (to use your phrase above) is actually the inverse of your presented argument. It is not that God’s knowledge logically entails a person choosing X (though that is certainly the case), it is that a person choosing X logically entails God’s knowledge of it!

only if you first assume that there is such a thing as time, and then assume their is some separation between the actuality of existenet events and the simple actuality of G-d which logically entails all existent events.

your argument is built on a number of assumptions you must first prove to get there, simply ignoring it doesnt make it go away.

God’s knowledge is thus logically contingent upon the choice of a will not identical with His own. In effect, God’s knowledge is in some sense “caused” by this other entity’s choice (time not entering into it).

G-ds knowledge is actual just as existent event are actual, there is no seperation between the actuality of events and G-ds actuality as His Essence.

If that is the case, and if God’s knowledge is indistinguishable from His essence (being divinely simple and unified), then God’s essence is in some way “caused” by, i.e. logically contingent upon, another being! God’s self-necessity goes out the window.

G-ds position as the necessary being isnt founded on the free will actions of contingent beings, its a necessity derived from the existence of continggent beings.

If we stick with this line of discussion, we may be able to keep R Daneel’s interest and also elucidate the logic of the Church’s teaching regarding divine simplicity in the face of human free-will.

Again, THANK YOU Syntax.

im fine with that line of discussion, just prove th basis of your assumptions first, why should we take them to be true when the evidence doesnt seem to fit them?

trying to control the course of the conversation, or what objections are allowed, simply makes the position being protected look weak, as though it cant stand up to scrutiny.

we must expose our cherished beliefs to refutation, i demand that of both the atheist and theist. our ideas need no protection, exactly because our G-d is strong, He doesnt need our protection.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

R Daneel, I am glad you returned, I thought the OP extremely apt regarding understanding Church doctrine.
I believe at least a few posters to this thread understand the distinction you are trying to make. May I suggest you follow my own and Syntax’s lead and try to avoid the term “cause” by speaking instead in the passive voice using “logically contingent”? This may also help you further analyze and uncover who/what establishes a particular “logical contingency”…

please. tell us. where can we find this phrase “logically contingent”?

 

[Syntax]

THANK YOU, Syntax for seeing to the root which I apparently failed to point out in my last post!

You’re welcome But my main concern is just clearing up everyone’s confusions and misuse of philosophical vocabulary–which almost everyone is guilty of in this thread.

In my previous posts, I have presented suggestions concerning WHY the -]logical contingency /-]between free choice X and knowledge of it does not entail direct and -]essential causation/-], from the points of how the logical contingency is established and questioning what constitutes an essential “property”.

Ok, “logically contingent” actually means logically could have been otherwise. “Logical contingency” does not mean logical dependence. Only “logical entailment” expresses the relation of logical dependence.

So if you say that the relation between cause and effect is logically contingent, then you are saying that the effect might not have occured when the cause occurs. But cause-and-effect is not construed this way; rather, it is construed as expressing causal sufficiency, that is, given the cause, the effect *must *occur in terms of ontological dependency, not logical dependency.

I believe I read some of your posts, and I think I may agree with most of it, but I also think you are being a bit sloppy in your use of philosophical vocabulary. Don’t worry, though, you are doing a much better job than R Daneel in articulating a clear and well-formed thought.

R Daneel and I have been using the term “cause” to include “logical entailment” or contingency. “Cause” in terms of some event implies time and, as I already stated and so did R Daneel, time is not the issue here, discussing it only leads to greater confusion and misunderstanding.

There’s a really pressing need for a clarification of your use of terms here:

First, I know people will often say things in ordinary speech like

“My buying that new car is contingent upon my gettting my next pay check.”

However, this is an incorrect use of the term “contingent.”
“Contingent” does NOT mean ontologically dependent on.
Strictly speaking, “contingent” only means could have been otherwise (as I’ve already mentioned), as in,

“The existence of the universe is a contingent fact because God could have *not *created it, that is, the universe might not have existed at all.”

It is true that the existence of the universe is ontologically dependent upon God’s act of creating it because God caused it to come into existence. But it is also true that the universe *may not have existed *at all, that is, the universe exists contingently, not necessarily. See the difference?

Second, you cannot use “to cause” to mean “logically entails,” although I can see how you might think they are one and same. Logical entailment is a grounds/consequence relation between premise and conclusion as in,

(a) Necessarily P
(b) Therefore, P.

or

(a) ~(A or B)
(b) Therefore, (~A and ~B)

Causal sufficiency is a *material conditional *relation between events, not between premise/conclusion as in,

If A, then B.
A
So, B.

Though causal sufficiency is often expressed in logical form here above, it is not a logical relation between 2 premises and conclusion. It is a relation between an event A and another event B. So really it is saying,

A is sufficient for B
So given the occurrence of A, B must occur

Take the difference between

Grandpa didn’t wake up in the morning
why?
Because he’s sick

AND

Grandpa is sick
why?
Because he didn’t wake up in the morning.

The first expresses causal sufficiency. Grandpa’s being sick is the cause of his not getting up in the morning.
The second expresses my reason for believing Grandpa is sick and is expressed in the following inductive logical argument:

Grandpa didn’t wake up in the morning.
Therefore, he is probably sick.

The “real problem” (to use your phrase above) is actually the inverse of your presented argument. It is not that God’s knowledge logically entails a person choosing X (though that is certainly the case), it is that a person choosing X logically entails God’s knowledge of it! God’s knowledge is thus logically contingent upon the choice of a will not identical with His own. In effect, God’s knowledge is in some sense “caused” by this other entity’s choice (time not entering into it). If that is the case, and if God’s knowledge is indistinguishable from His essence (being divinely simple and unified), then God’s essence is in some way “caused” by, i.e. logically contingent upon, another being! God’s self-necessity goes out the window.

Ok, hold up. This is a Divine Simplicity problem and doesn’t threaten Free Will at all. It has nothing to do with the **Foreknowledge/Human Freedom **debate. But if R Daneel, or anyone else thinks Divine Simplicity is a Foreknowledge/Human Freedom issue, then he is clearly using the wrong argument to get across a different point. For there is nothing logically inconsistent about the following two statements:

(1) a person’s action X causes God’s knowledge of X
(2) a person Y feely does X.

So there’s nothing logically inconsistent about believing both (1) and (2) at once.

But, if I remember correctly, R Daneel was saying something along the lines that these two propositions (1) and (2), together with

(3) God’s knowledge causes a person Y to do X

is logically inconsistent because (3) will invariably contradict (2). But so what? No Christian believes (3) anyway!

So RDaneel’s argument is a *straw man *right from the get-go.

 

[Syntax]

May I suggest you follow my own and Syntax’s lead and try to avoid the term -]]“cause”/-] by speaking instead in the passive voice using -]“logically contingent/-]”? This may also help you further analyze and uncover who/what establishes a particular “logical contingency”

…

NO!!! I did not endorse this at all, Chiral! It just confuses everything.

You need to get your use of terms straight…please?

 

[Syntax]

please. tell us. where can we find this phrase “logically contingent”?

Thanks, Warpspeed. That’s right, I didn’t say this anywhere!

 

[Chiral]

What you are calling “logical contingency”, is in form, accidental necessity…

Good, focus on that. What is “accidental necessity”? What establishes it, and what relationship does it entail between a “knower”-subject and the objects corresponding to that subject’s knowledge?

…only if you first assume that there is… some separation between the actuality of existent events and the simple actuality of G-d which logically entails all existent events… G-d’s knowledge is actual just as existent events are actual, there is no separation between the actuality of events and G-d’s actuality as His Essence…

This pushes too far, you’ll lose R Daneel’s interest again. The “existent event” we want to focus on is an individual free choice made by an entity other than God. Naturally (according to Catholic teaching) all things & events, including free choices, emanate directly from the Creator and are logically contingent thereupon. But R Daneel is not there, so we must focus on a single immediate instance and the relationship between it and God’s knowledge of it. Get what I mean?

…Your argument is built on a number of assumptions you must first prove to get there, simply ignoring it doesn’t make it go away…
…trying to control the course of the conversation, or what objections are allowed, simply makes the position being protected look weak, as though it cant stand up to scrutiny…

:blush:What I am trying to do is “come to terms” with the OP and focus on specific points of argument, then discuss/flesh-out those points with the original poster and, preferably, your assistance.
Your focus on time demonstrates a… confusion or disconnect in understanding between you and the poster. One must first “come to terms” in order to carry on a meaningful and potentially helpful discussion or debate. If you wish people to come to an appreciative understanding of your position, you must guide them there along lines of discussion that keep their interest, and don’t jump steps, take short-cuts, or run off on tangents which engender greater confusion.
So please, warpspeedpetey, tell Sulu to put the Enterprise under “impulse power” and work on helping the poster rather than driving him away. Get me?

No offense intended.

 

[Chiral]

…my main concern is just clearing up everyone’s confusions and misuse of philosophical vocabulary–which almost everyone is guilty of in this thread…

…“logically contingent” actually means logically could have been otherwise. “Logical contingency” does not mean logical dependence. Only “logical entailment” expresses the relation of logical dependence…

Hmm, a distinction between “contingent” and “dependent”. I don’t know where you get this specificity with regard to terminology, but if that’s what you’ve been struggling over, I’m fine with it if the poster is. You seem to think of “contingency” only in temporal terms of “cause-effect”, which I think R Daneel made clear that was not what he meant. It’s funny, but am I the only one who has understood the pith of the OP from the beginning…? Needless to say, “could have been otherwise” gets away from the intended meaning.

…I also think you are being a bit sloppy in your use of philosophical vocabulary. Don’t worry, though, you are doing a much better job than R Daneel in articulating a clear and well-formed thought…

sigh What am I trying to do is get inside R Daneel’s head to see how he thinks and work from there… “Sloppy” would be missing the posters point entirely and running off on tangents more to your liking.

…you cannot use “to cause” to mean “logically entails”… Logical entailment is a grounds/consequence relation between premise and conclusion…
Causal sufficiency is a *material conditional *relation between events, not between premise/conclusion as in,

If A, then B.
A
So, B…

…A is sufficient for B
So given the occurrence of A, B must occur.

Here we are! THIS is the focus - “causal sufficiency”, a “conditional relationship between events”. If A, then B. A, therefore B. A = a human free choice, B = God’s knowledge thereof. A and B can be switched in the premise, but the point of focus is A “causing” B, (but do not use “occur” for that implies time). And yes, “causal sufficiency” does include logical entailment. The difference is 1 step or 2.

…Ok, hold up. This is a Divine Simplicity problem and doesn’t threaten Free Will at all. It has nothing to do with the **Foreknowledge/Human Freedom **debate…

EXACTLY!!! In the OP, #1 dealt with free will but is clearly out. This is #2! Does a person’s action, namely choice, “cause” something in God which is identical to His essence and therefore “cause” God? If so, Catholic teaching implodes.

Sheesh. 'You realize it’s been 8 pages and you’re just hitting the question now? sigh Sorry, guys, I didn’t mean to derail a discussion of the illusory nature of time, but it didn’t seem to pertain to the OP.

Now, I’ll leave it to R Daneel to shut me down, taking liberties with claiming to know what *he *meant in the OP.