Double trouble!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tyrion
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Candide West:
Omniscience entails that God knows the answer to every valid question, demonstrating omniscience would therefore (as a minimum) require that God correctly answer any and all valid questions that are asked of him.
but you just said ‘Omniscience entails that God knows the answer to every valid question…’,
so if God doesn’t know the answer to the question and if he is omniscient then that logically means that the question is not valid. and that means that God cannot answer it incorrectly, because it is not a valid question…
 
formally:

If an experimenter has choice A and B, God knows which the experimenter will pick, the experimenter can actually freely choose one of the options, and the experimenter will choose the opposite option of whatever God predicts to him, then God can not give an accurate prediction to the experimenter about the choice he will make.
Your words:

IF
  1. an experimenter has choice A and B,
    2.God knows which the experimenter will pick,
    3.the experimenter can actually freely choose one of the options,
    4.and the experimenter will choose the opposite option of whatever God predicts to him,
THEN

God can not give an accurate prediction to the experimenter about the choice he will make.

Your words hide a contradiction in terms. Specifically, 4 is inconsistent with 2.

Reality:

IF
  1. an experimenter has choice A and B,
    2.God knows which the experimenter will pick,
    3.the experimenter can actually freely choose one of the options,
THEN

The experimenter will choose whatever God predicts to him.

You, Candide, and Tyrion, are all confused about reality. You are painting an impossible hypothetical situation, where reality contradicts itself, and you don’t understand how you are doing that.

Here is a reality that it would be good for you to face: not every hypothetical is actually possible.

It is easy to paint an unrealistic scenario in your mind, because your mind is not restricted to reality. You can imagine a unicorn even though there are no real unicorns. You cannot produce a unicorn, because there are no real unicorns. You can imagine Tyrion rendering God unable to accurately predict his future free will action even though it is impossible that God would be unable to accurately so predict. You cannot produce a real condition wherein God would be unable to know the future, because, God knows everything.

Lack of knowledge is a lack, and God has no lack. But Tyrion does. It is impossible that there could be two omniscient beings with different wills. So whose knowledge of the future is greater — the one whose knowledge is infinite, or the one whose knowledge is finite or nonexistent? Plainly, the one whose knowledge is infinite has the greater knowledge.

We are talking about free will. Free will is morally significant. There are no morally neutral free will decisions. Morally neutral decisions are based on some other criterion than free will.

Now, Tyrion’s decision to defy God is not morally neutral, it is in fact sinful. God can allow sin, but He doesn’t have to. No power in the universe can force God to allow sin. So the whole scenario in the first place is based on a fallacy, namely the fallacy that God must allow Tyrion to commit presumption of pride. Tyrion doesn’t see it that way, of course. Tyrion is so consumed by sins of pride, that he actually thinks he is disproving, not God, but only ideas of God. Because Tyrion actually thinks, in his sacrilege of pride, that God consists entirely in other people’s mistaken ideas about the universe. So Tyrion’s presumption of pride has not yet reached the height of heaven; it only extends, so far, horizontally, to his fellow human creatures. Tyrion sins against his fellow human beings by presumption of pride, thinking to show those who know God that his ignorance of God is superior to their knowledge. As if to say that ignorance can possibly be superior to knowledge. That is what Tyrion and some others actually think.

What Tyrion and those others who are agreeing with his insolence fail to take into account is that no hypothetical scenario can actually capture a real scenario. Reality is vaster by far than human imagination. In particular, a philosophical hypothetical is designed to demonstrate certain aspects of thought, and those thoughts are taken to correlate to reality in some way. But the hypothetical of this thread is missing some things that would certainly be present in reality, if reality were quite a bit different than it actually is, which, I allow, is possible. But we need to make those assumptions clear, and not sweep them under the rug as has been being done.
 
One assumption is that there are morally neutral free will decisions. But, in reality, there aren’t. So, Tyrion’s choice of A or B, if under free will, cannot be morally neutral. I have attempted to paint it in more realistic terms, so that A might be saving the girl from the burning building and B might be letting her die instead, in order to demonstrate the fallacy. It is not that no one can freely decide to do something against their own morals. We do it all the time. Saint Peter did it. Saint Peter really wanted to remain faithful, and it would have been morally correct for him to remain faithful. In order for Jesus’s prediction to be correct, Saint Peter had to lie. Saint Peter did lie, three times, denying that he even knew a man with whom he had been in constant contact for the three previous years. He simply did not have the moral strength to own up to the truth, and Jesus knew it.

Now, as pointed out, Tyrion’s decision to even try to “prove God wrong,” is NOT a morally neutral decision. Tyrion has already committed a sin of pride in presuming to test God, in the first place. God is under no obligation whatsoever to cater to Tyrion’s sin of pride. In fact, Holy Scripture plainly states, “He hath confused the proud in their inmost thoughts.”

The thought experiment, then, is not a morally neutral experiment. It is a sin of pride of presumption. The roll of dice may indeed be morally neutral, but the motive behind rolling the dice, is not. So God is under no obligation whatsoever to even allow Tyrion to pick up any dice and attempt to roll them.

But let’s assume, for the sake of the argument, that He did. Let’s assume that Tyrion’s insolent demand of God is that God give Tyrion an accurate prediction of how many dice Tyrion will choose to pick up. Let’s assume that the scenario at t=0 is the following:
  1. Tyrion has four dice.
  2. Tyrion has asked God for his prediction.
  3. God predicts Tyrion will pick up three dice.
Then, to be consistent with reality, the following will occur at t=1:

Tyrion will freely choose to pick up three dice.

Don’t ask me “how?” I don’t know how. I freely admit that I am nowhere near as smart as God, so I don’t experience any requirement to know “how.”

But I do know that there are herein two different principles at work, one of which is stronger than the other. The first, and stronger principle, is God’s omniscient foreknowledge. The second, weaker principle, is Tyrion’s own foreknowledge of his own future free will decision. Perfect knowledge of one’s own future decisions would require, among other things, perfect self-control and perfect knowledge of all the situational factors of those decisions, neither of which Tyrion has. What Tyrion does have, is his insolence of pride, and that calls for rebuke. So, knowing God as I do, I predict that God will rebuke Tyrion’s pride.

“He hath confused the proud in their inmost thoughts.”
 
do you understand that Tyrion can make a decision contingent on the prediction he is offered?
Do you understand that that is an untenable assumption? It assumes Tyrion has perfect self-control, which he does not.

If Saint Peter could have avoided denying Christ, he certainly would have. He could not. even though he would have liked to. He was human, just as Tyrion is.
 
but you just said ‘Omniscience entails that God knows the answer to every valid question…’,
so if God doesn’t know the answer to the question and if he is omniscient then that logically means that the question is not valid. and that means that God cannot answer it incorrectly, because it is not a valid question…
Sure, but God knowing the answer is not the same as God answering the question correctly and in order to demonstrate omniscience he would need to be able to.

God knowing the answer to every valid question that is asked of him is no problem. However, as we have demonstrated it is logically impossible for God to actually correctly answer every valid question asked of him.

So the questions are valid, there are correct answers and God knows what they are, but he cannot answer the questions. This he cannot demonstrate his omniscience.
 
There is nothing in his argument which challenges the coherency of God (he tried to but that part of the argument fails) his argument does show that it is impossible for God to demonstrate his omniscience. That is all.
Tyrion’s argument possibly proves the limitations of human logic, that would be about all.

Kurt Goedel proved something similar about the limitations of mathematics.
 
Lame? Why? It demonstrated that it is possible for a sceptic to ask questions of an omniscient God which he is unable to answer. Thus the OP statement that it is impossible for God to demonstrate his omniscient to a sceptical audience is correct.

That’s what it set out to so, and that’s what it did. Nothing “lame” about a simple thought experiment which shows exactly what it was intended to.
While I would agree that “it is impossible for God to demonstrate his omniscient to a sceptical audience”, it is not because “it is possible for a sceptic to ask questions of an omniscient God which he is unable to answer.”

Scenario is that you ask God how you will react, intending to do the opposite.
If it is God’s will to show you what will happen, it will clearly happen.
In this case what would God would show? - nothing because that is the outcome.
Tyrion will wait and wait and wait, that is his fate and God will show it to him.
It is not that He cannot tell Tyrion, He is showing Tyrion the outcome of his plan,
Nothing will happen as long as Tyrion chooses not to act.
At any rate, God as revealed in the Bible gives people options in order to make their will truly free.
 
Do you understand that that is an untenable assumption? It assumes Tyrion has perfect self-control, which he does not.
.
Not at all, it assumes that Tyrion has free will. That is all.

If you are still struggling with this then lets try a different approach. Remember for Tyrions argument that God cannot demonstrate his omniscience to be correct all he needs is a single valid question which God cannot answer.

So Tyrion asks “what answer will never be given to this question?”

The question is valid, there are an infinite number of correct answers available (and God knows them all). But any answer that God gives to Tyrion would be wrong (because it was given).

Can God correctly answer the question?
 
Tyrion’s argument possibly proves the limitations of human logic, that would be about all.

Kurt Goedel proved something similar about the limitations of mathematics.
No, it shows it is logically impossible for God to demonstrate his omniscience. It’s an interesting little snippet, but doesn’t get us anywhere else.
 
While I would agree that “it is impossible for God to demonstrate his omniscient to a sceptical audience”, it is not because “it is possible for a sceptic to ask questions of an omniscient God which he is unable to answer.”

Scenario is that you ask God how you will react, intending to do the opposite.
If it is God’s will to show you what will happen, it will clearly happen.
In this case what would God would show? - nothing because that is the outcome.
Tyrion will wait and wait and wait, that is his fate and God will show it to him.
It is not that He cannot tell Tyrion, He is showing Tyrion the outcome of his plan,
Nothing will happen as long as Tyrion chooses not to act.
At any rate, God as revealed in the Bible gives people options in order to make their will truly free.
I’m confused, you disagreed that Tyrion can ask questions of God that he cannot answer and then agreed that God would never answer Tyrions question.

Why so you think you can predict what God would do if you don’t believe that it is a logical impossibility?
 
Not at all, it assumes that Tyrion has free will. That is all.

If you are still struggling with this then lets try a different approach. Remember for Tyrions argument that God cannot demonstrate his omniscience to be correct all he needs is a single valid question which God cannot answer.

So Tyrion asks “what answer will never be given to this question?”

The question is valid, there are an infinite number of correct answers available (and God knows them all). But any answer that God gives to Tyrion would be wrong (because it was given).

Can God correctly answer the question?
This is actually a perfect example of the aforementioned Goedel’s theorem. Goerdel converts such a statement (“This statement is false.”) into the system of arithmetic to demonstrate that there are statements in logical systems which cannot be proven. A logical system cannot be demonstrated to be internally coherent.

And this is really the fundamental problem with this whole argument. Logical systems consist of beings of reason, not actual beings (ens reale). They are mediums for human understanding. That is not to say that mathematics or logic, for instance, cannot represent reality extremely well, because they do, but they are not reality.

God’s omniscience is a matter of reality, not the logical system that you have conceived. By definition of His omniscience, God knows how many dice Tyrion will roll.
 
God’s omniscience is a matter of reality, not the logical system that you have conceived. By definition of His omniscience, God knows how many dice Tyrion will roll.
Over and over, people are falling into the trap I felt they were falling into.

This thought experiment makes no claim for or against God’s omniscience. All it shows is that God cannot demonstrate that He is omniscient to another being.
 
This is actually a perfect example of the aforementioned Goedel’s theorem. Goerdel converts such a statement (“This statement is false.”) into the system of arithmetic to demonstrate that there are statements in logical systems which cannot be proven. A logical system cannot be demonstrated to be internally coherent.

And this is really the fundamental problem with this whole argument. Logical systems consist of beings of reason, not actual beings (ens reale). They are mediums for human understanding. That is not to say that mathematics or logic, for instance, cannot represent reality extremely well, because they do, but they are not reality.

God’s omniscience is a matter of reality, not the logical system that you have conceived. By definition of His omniscience, God knows how many dice Tyrion will roll.
Indeed, but this does not entail that he must be able to tell Tyrion how many dice he will roll.

God having omniscience is not a logical impossibility, God DEMONSTRATING his omniscience is.
 
Over and over, people are falling into the trap I felt they were falling into.

This thought experiment makes no claim for or against God’s omniscience. All it shows is that God cannot demonstrate that He is omniscient to another being.
Agreed.
 
If we introduce a third party to whom the prediction is disclosed, then God can demonstrate His omniscience.

The thought experiment relies on the dice roller’s ability to react to God’s knowledge of the result and produce a different result contrary to the prediction. A third party who does influence the dice roll could verify the integrity of God’s omniscience. Tyrion asks God to predict how many dice he will roll. God tells the third party the prediction. Tyrion acts. God’s prediction will be right.

This seems far more appropriate since the thought experiment, as conceived, implicitly assumes that the dice roller is, practically speaking, omniscient (knows the complete nature of reality) and can even alter that reality.
 
I’m confused, you disagreed that Tyrion can ask questions of God that he cannot answer and then agreed that God would never answer Tyrions question.

Why so you think you can predict what God would do if you don’t believe that it is a logical impossibility?
The answer is nothing
because that is what Tyrion has chosen
Tyrion hearing nothing, continues to not respond by choosing nothing
the answer is correct and true
Tyrion does nothing
and hears back that he will do nothing
he does get an answer
God does respond
 
Let’s see two alleged attributes of God: omnipotence and omniscience. The current question is: “Can God prove his omniscience?”. In other words, is it within God’s “omnipotence” to really prove that he knows what free agents will do sometime in the future? (It is future only for us…) Of course God may simply say that he knows what I will do at any time in the future. But I am a “nasty” skeptic, and will ask if he can prove what he says?

As such I offer the following experiment. I will select a few dice, and will toss them sometime in the future. Can God predict and reveal the result? How many dice will I select? With which hand am I going to do the toss? When will I do the toss? Of course, as soon as I hear the prediction, I will do something else - as long as God does not “tinker” with my free will. 🙂 If God says that I will select 3 dice, then I will select 1, or 2, or 4, etc… anything but 3. If he says that I will make the toss with my right hand… then I will do it with my left hand. 🙂 If he says that I will make the toss within the next 5 minutes… then I will wait 6 minutes. Since I will act only when I heard the prediction, I am in the driver’s seat.
As I look back at the original post, the assumptions necessary to achieve contradiction are pretty obvious. The question that Tyrion wants answered (in the first paragraph) is whether God can prove his omniscience. God has to prove that He knows beforehand. He does not have to articulate what he knows before the action is made; he can demonstrate that he knew after the action without violating his omniscience or omnipotence. For this reason the proposed thought experiment is not testing what Tyrion is trying to answer.

Tyrion is made effectively omniscient when God discloses what will transpire. Tyrion’s ability to then act contrary to that prediction is omnipotence, ie. reality conforms to what Tyrion wants. Tyrion and God have different wills, but the thought experiment presupposes that both are omnipotent. This is a contradiction.

Tyrion says to God, “God, I will roll 4 dice.” God writes on a slip of paper, “You will deny me and roll 3 dice.” Tyrion rolls 3 dice. God reveals what he had written on the paper.
 
Sure, but God knowing the answer is not the same as God answering the question correctly and in order to demonstrate omniscience he would need to be able to.

God knowing the answer to every valid question that is asked of him is no problem. However, as we have demonstrated it is logically impossible for God to actually correctly answer every valid question asked of him.

So the questions are valid, there are correct answers and God knows what they are, but he cannot answer the questions. This he cannot demonstrate his omniscience.
but if he can answer the question then he can answer it, not that he cannot answer it but that he won’t answer it since he knows the answer. so he does not give an incorrect answer.
 
but if he can answer the question then he can answer it, not that he cannot answer it but that he won’t answer it since he knows the answer. so he does not give an incorrect answer.
Again, it would really help if you read my posts before replying to them. He CANNOT answer the question. He will know the correct answer to the question, but that isn’t the same as being able to answer it correctly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top