Double trouble!

[zro_x]

“Is the answer to this question, ‘No’?”

strictly speaking, “maybe” is a correct answer.

 

[Love4All]

No, you misunderstand. That is not adequate. That’s actually why I raised the point about the “many worlds” tool. The point is that there is no possible world in which Tyrion chooses B. Which means that it is not even an option. In other words it is logically impossible.

That is incoherent. You are taking away Tyrion’s free will, by fiat.

If you are saying that Tyrion could do something which is logically impossible then you are granting him more power than even omnipotence entails.

To choose A or B is not logically impossible. If we stipulate, as a given, that Tyrion can choose A or B, then there are necessarily some possible worlds where he chooses A, and others where he chooses B.

In any case we still have the previously identified “what answer will never be given to this question”. The question CANNOT be answered correctly, even by an omniscient God, despite the fact that there are correct answers and he will KNOW all the correct answers.

That is a logical paradox, useless except as a curiosity. It doesn’t, and cannot, prove anything about anything we might wish to discuss, unless we wish to discuss logical paradoxes. But my impression was that we wished to discuss whether omniscience and omnipotence can exist in the same Being, without contradiction. Additionally, we add respect for free will. So the topic here is whether omniscience, omnipotence, and respect for free will can coherently co-exist in a single Being. Not, whether we can create illusions with words.

I think that’s actually a much neater demonstration of the impossibility of demonstrating omniscience.

I already explained why it is impossible to truly demonstrate omniscience to a non-omniscient being. For the same reason it is impossible to disprove the existence of unicorns. But that’s not really what’s at stake here.

We are not asking God to demonstrate factual omniscience, but rather, particular knowledge from an infinite field. We could certainly infer omniscience from this, but only by induction, never deduction. We could establish with reasonable scientific certitude that God in fact knows everything, by testing God’s knowledge over a wide array of subjects, and finding ourselves unable to falsify the proposition.

So the topic is whether God can demonstrate particular knowledge of the future, when free will is involved, and the being with free will receives particular knowledge of his own future free will choice.

You maintain that He cannot, whereas I maintain that He can, and I have been giving demonstrative examples of the principles involved. To wit,

1. Saint Peter was unable to contradict Christ’s prediction of his triple denial.
2. Tyrion would be unable (we truly hope!) to contradict God’s prediction that he would save his daughter from the flames.
3. Neo was unable to contradict the Architect’s prediction that Neo would throw away the whole human race to save one girl whom he specially loved.

All three are predictions of future free will events. All three involve the being with free will receiving the prediction before the event. And all three come out in the end that the prediction was accurate. NOTE WELL: Saint Peter explicitly objected that his will was to make Christ’s prediction NOT come true, but it did anyway. Tyrion insists that he can contradict God’s prediction, but it would make him a murderer of his own flesh and blood, to do so. Neo really did care about the whole human race, he just wasn’t willing to sacrifice Trinity for it. Also Neo wanted, with all his heart and soul, to demonstrate that the machines did not control him. And the machines didn’t. But they did accurately predict what he was going to choose.

Since it is Tyrion’s scenario we are discussing here, number 2 above is particularly pertinent. Note that I have added to it. But there was no specification made, that God could not add conditions, in order to confound Tyrion’s pride and demonstrate His omnipotence and His omniscience together. All the conditions of the original scenario remain fulfilled, but A or B have real world results, as opposed to being purely arbitrary. This is more consistent with reality, in which our decisions have consequences. And if you continue to add additional stipulations, you make the whole argument more and more ad hoc.

You will never truly demonstrate a contradiction between omniscience, omnipotence, and respect for free will, because such a contradiction does not exist. You can never outsmart God. So far, you haven’t yet outsmarted me, but even if you could, that would not mean that you could outsmart God.

 

[Love4All]

I take it that you acknoweldge the law of cause and effect and the idea that God sees all times at once, as he is eternal. Well, he not only sees all times, but he also sees all possibilities, and of course, God can change the course of history if he desires. He knows that if he does not part the red sea, the isrealites will be captured. Without God’s intervention the isrealites will be captured at the red sea. This does not mean that this future is locked in place, it means that the actual timeline needs to include the actions of God, as they can make a difference in the timeline.

Carry this over to Tyrion’s experiment. God knows that by acting, he can change the course of history. He sees the possible world in which he does not respond to Tyrion’s challenge, and the possible world in which he does. Without God’s intervention, Tyrion will choose A. But since God’s intervention can change the course of history, then if God does intervene and predicts A, then God has influenced history in such a way that Tyrion will choose B instead. The intervention causes Tyrion to choose the opposite of the prediction. We can not postulate that God’s prediction has no effect on the actual course of action that is taken, because that violates the law of cause and effect. let me revise my formal argument:

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.The experimenter intends to choose the opposite option of whatever God predicts to him,
2. and the universe is such that if God makes a prediction, he will cause the experimenter to make the opposite choice,

THEN

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

And I know that this hypothetical scenario in no way reflects reality, as God would never actually choose to participate in such an experiment in the first place. The hypothetical scenario is designed to show that God couldn’t make an accurate prediction in these conditions, even if he wanted to. He can still know what Tyrion will pick, he just can’t tell him this information.

Sorry, no. 5 is arbitrary and spoils the mix, making it the same thing as a round square. You are making a stipulation about the universe. You needn’t have included anything else.

If the universe were such that God is a bowl of cream cheese, then God is a bowl of cream cheese.

Anything beginning with, “if the universe were such that. . .,” is true by definition.

If A = A, then A = A. It says nothing.

 

[Love4All]

strictly speaking, “maybe” is a correct answer.

Not if it’s correct.

 

[JamesATyler]

I tell you, you will choose A, but since you have heard me tell you, “You will choose A”, you will choose B.

Now, which option must Tyrion select to contradict God.

 

[Love4All]

I tell you, you will choose A, but since you have heard me tell you, “You will choose A”, you will choose B.

Now, which option must Tyrion select to contradict God.

In the way you’ve said it, in order to contradict God, Tyrion would have to choose A.

And factually, Tyrion in the scenario you’ve painted would choose B. Assuming, of course, that it was God’s intention to demonstrate His omniscience. God may have other plans.

 

[Love4All]

I tell you, you will choose A, but since you have heard me tell you, “You will choose A”, you will choose B.

Now, which option must Tyrion select to contradict God.

God wouldn’t say that, because it contradicts itself.

 

[CandideWest]

That is incoherent. You are taking away Tyrion’s free will, by fiat.

Er… no, I am specifically assuming that Tyrion maintains his free will.

To choose A or B is not logically impossible. If we stipulate, as a given, that Tyrion can choose A or B, then there are necessarily some possible worlds where he chooses A, and others where he chooses B.

Right, and if Tyrion is to maintain his free will this must remain true even after God has made his prediction (and before Tyrion has made his decision). What you have claimed is that once God has predicted that Tyrion will choose A there is no possible world in which Tyrion actually chooses B.

If this is the case then once God has made his prediction it is logically impossible for Tyrion to choose B. He simply has no choice.

That is a logical paradox, useless except as a curiosity. It doesn’t, and cannot, prove anything about anything we might wish to discuss, unless we wish to discuss logical paradoxes.

It is a valid question (which relates to the future) which God will necessarily know all of the correct answers to, but cannot actually give any of them. It is another question which Tyrion could ask which sidesteps the free will question and still shows that God cannot demonstrate his omniscience.

But my impression was that we wished to discuss whether omniscience and omnipotence can exist in the same Being, without contradiction. Additionally, we add respect for free will. So the topic here is whether omniscience, omnipotence, and respect for free will can coherently co-exist in a single Being. Not, whether we can create illusions with words.

But I’ve already shown why that part of Tyrion’s logic failed. Many times in fact. It fails specifically because it is logically impossible for God to demonstrate his omniscience.

I already explained why it is impossible to truly demonstrate omniscience to a non-omniscient being.

So did I. So we seem to be in agreement.

But that’s not really what’s at stake here.

It seems to be. It’s all I’m arguing for.

We are not asking God to demonstrate factual omniscience, but rather, particular knowledge from an infinite field. We could certainly infer omniscience from this, but only by induction, never deduction. We could establish with reasonable scientific certitude that God in fact knows everything, by testing God’s knowledge over a wide array of subjects, and finding ourselves unable to falsify the proposition.

Not quite, you see as per the OP logic, in order to demonstrate omniscience God would need to be able to (as a minimum) correctly answer any and all valid questions which are asked of him. He simply cannot do this. So it is logically impossible for an omniscient being to demonstrate omniscience.

So the topic is whether God can demonstrate particular knowledge of the future, when free will is involved, and the being with free will receives particular knowledge of his own future free will choice.

You maintain that He cannot, whereas I maintain that He can, and I have been giving demonstrative examples of the principles involved.

Your examples are not relevant to the situation at hand as none of them include the contingent nature of the decision point which is key to Tyrions original post.

You will never truly demonstrate a contradiction between omniscience, omnipotence, and respect for free will, because such a contradiction does not exist.

Nor have I tried to.

You can never outsmart God.

Nor have I tried to (indeed it would be odd for me to try to outsmart an entity which I do not believe to exist).

So far, you haven’t yet outsmarted me, but even if you could, that would not mean that you could outsmart God.

Nor have I tried to. Indeed my chief contribution on this thread has been to identify the error in Tyrions logic. In which you seem to be in violent agreement with me.

 

[JamesATyler]

God wouldn’t say that, because it contradicts itself.

Alright then…

I tell you, you will choose A, but since the time that you believed it is my desire that you choose A, you will choose B.

Now, which option must Tyrion select to contradict God. How can Tyrion prove that God is not all knowing by this statement since it illustrates that God knows which option he will select.

To answer the question, its just a matter of timing since both answers are correct at different times based on what Tyrion believes.

Wouldn’t God just address the problem in his prediction?

 

[CandideWest]

Alright then…

I tell you, you will choose A, but since the time that you believed it is my desire that you choose A, you will choose B.

I’m afraid I don’t understand that answer, please could you restate it in clear terms?

Now, which option must Tyrion select to contradict God. How can Tyrion prove that God is not all knowing by this statement since it illustrates that God knows which option he will select.

This is not about proving the God is not omniscient. It is about it being logically impossible for God to demonstrate omniscience.

To answer the question, its just a matter of timing since both answers are correct at different times based on what Tyrion believes.

That doesn’t work I’m afraid there is only one correct answer, it is A or B in a single act of choice.

Wouldn’t God just address the problem in his prediction?

Because its been set up to be logically impossible for him to do so.

 

[Love4All]

Love4All:

If we stipulate, as a given, that Tyrion can choose A or B, then there are necessarily some possible worlds where he chooses A, and others where he chooses B.

Right, and if Tyrion is to maintain his free will this must remain true even after God has made his prediction (and before Tyrion has made his decision). What you have claimed is that once God has predicted that Tyrion will choose A there is no possible world in which Tyrion actually chooses B.

Um, I think you are confusing me with you. Your claim is that “once God has predicted that Tyrion will choose A there is no possible world in which Tyrion actually chooses B.”

My claim is the contrary. There are possible worlds where Tyrion chooses A, and possible worlds where Tyrion chooses B.

I don’t think you really have a very good grasp on the concept of possible worlds.

Your phrase above, that I enclosed in quotes, is confused. There is no change in possible worlds “before” and “after” God has predicted. Possible worlds are possible worlds. They include both time and space, so how could they change over time?

In some possible worlds, Tyrion chooses A, and God predicts A. In some possible worlds, Tyrion chooses B, and God predicts B. There are no possible worlds wherein God predicts incorrectly, since God is omniscient.

But you are confused about something, and I will help you to understand if I can.

I know, I know, you want there to be a possible world wherein Tyrion listens to God and successfully disproves His prediction, but that is not a possible world. You overestimate Tyrion’s power, and underestimate God’s, which is absurd, since God is also omnipotent.

You want there to be a possible world wherein, because of the nature of a logical paradox, God finds Himself unable to demonstrate particular knowledge, but again, there is no such possible world. This is our point of disagreement. You say it can’t be done. I say you greatly underestimate omnipotence. And I am just a human being. God is more powerful and, let’s face it, more imaginative than I am. What I have demonstrated in three ways, God could easily demonstrate in three billion different ways.

Let’s agree to stop discussing whether God can demonstrate omniscience, since a non-omniscient being cannot prove a negative. Let us instead discuss whether God can demonstrate particular knowledge. You say He can’t, but you can’t prove it, whereas I say He can, and I can.

If this is the case then once God has made his prediction it is logically impossible for Tyrion to choose B. He simply has no choice.

Let us be clear, here. You are referring to your scenario wherein Tyrion’s new knowledge limits the possible worlds. I understand possible worlds a little better, so I know that is absurd.

I agree that if you arbitrarily limit possible worlds to those wherein Tyrion chooses A, you have rendered it impossible for him to choose B. But your limitation is, as I’ve said, arbitrary.

Maybe it isn’t possible worlds that are confusing you so much as time travel. I know it can get a little confusing.

It is a valid question (which relates to the future) which God will necessarily know all of the correct answers to, but cannot actually give any of them. It is another question which Tyrion could ask which sidesteps the free will question and still shows that God cannot demonstrate his omniscience.

It is categorically impossible that God could find Himself unable to express particular knowledge, whether about the future, the present, or the past. God knows everything and God can do anything. The paradox is in your mind; it doesn’t reach up to the Most High.

But I’ve already shown why that part of Tyrion’s logic failed. Many times in fact. It fails specifically because it is logically impossible for God to demonstrate his omniscience.

Not omniscience, particular knowledge. And no, it isn’t.
"Love4All:

I already explained why it is impossible to truly demonstrate omniscience to a non-omniscient being.

So did I. So we seem to be in agreement.

No. I explained the real reason why, and you wish to demonstrate another point which, as it turns out, is not valid.

It seems to be. It’s all I’m arguing for.

Not quite, you see as per the OP logic, in order to demonstrate omniscience God would need to be able to (as a minimum) correctly answer any and all valid questions which are asked of him. He simply cannot do this. So it is logically impossible for an omniscient being to demonstrate omniscience.

Incorrect, assuming we are really speaking, as we should be, about particular knowledge.

You are arguing that it is impossible for an omniscient being to demonstrate some particular knowledge. I am saying that is absurd, not it’s not impossible, it is easily done. You stipulate, “God would need to be able to (as a minimum) correctly answer any and all valid questions which are asked of him.” But here, you contradict yourself, because, “which will I choose, A or B,” is a valid question, whereas, “What answer will you not say?” isn’t.

Can you understand the difference? If you can’t, I’ll try to explain it better, but initially, please remember that the OP question was the one I am saying is valid, and God can answer it correctly. I think we should be discussing the OP as is, rather than your substitute question which, as it turns out, is not the same.

 

[Love4All]

Your examples are not relevant to the situation at hand as none of them include the contingent nature of the decision point which is key to Tyrions original post.

As I have repeatedly pointed out to you, Tyrion is not omnipotent. You should stop assuming, as you are, that he is.

Nor have I tried to. Indeed my chief contribution on this thread has been to identify the error in Tyrions logic. In which you seem to be in violent agreement with me.

No, you are adding an error of your own, of which I am patiently trying to disabuse you.

 

[Love4All]

Alright then…

I tell you, you will choose A, but since the time that you believed it is my desire that you choose A, you will choose B.

Then I tell you, you just contradicted yourself! Your words: “You will choose A. . .you will choose B.”

Can’t be both. Make up your mind!

Now, which option must Tyrion select to contradict God. How can Tyrion prove that God is not all knowing by this statement since it illustrates that God knows which option he will select.

To answer the question, its just a matter of timing since both answers are correct at different times based on what Tyrion believes.

Wouldn’t God just address the problem in his prediction?

It is not the case that both answers are correct at different times, because you are talking about one event. Either Tyrion will eventually choose A, or he will eventually choose B. That is the timeless truth about a particular event in space-time. The reality does not change when time goes by and things change in the world.

 

[JamesATyler]

I’m afraid I don’t understand that answer, please could you restate it in clear terms?

This is not about proving the God is not omniscient. It is about it being logically impossible for God to demonstrate omniscience.

That doesn’t work I’m afraid there is only one correct answer, it is A or B in a single act of choice.

Because its been set up to be logically impossible for him to do so.

If God says "Tyrion, you will do the opposite of what I say you will do and then says “You will choose A”, Tyrion would choose A. But even though he chose A, he still did the opposite of what God said he would do. Now Tyrion and God both know what Tyrion is trying to do because neither one of them is stupid. Therefore, Tyrion will know that God has predicted him accurately. I’m sorry bud, you might be able to fool a robot with your logic but you can’t fool God or a human being because everyone knows what he is up to.

Furthermore, If Tyrion says that God has not proved that he knows what Tyrion will do, Tyrion is only fooling himself.

It is easy because Tyrion is both contingent and predictable himself. A child could predict Tyrion.

 

[Love4All]

If God says "Tyrion, you will do the opposite of what I say you will do and then says “You will choose A”, Tyrion would choose A. But even though he chose A, he still did the opposite of what God said he would do. Now Tyrion and God both know what Tyrion is trying to do because neither one of them is stupid. Therefore, Tyrion will know that God has predicted him accurately. I’m sorry bud, you might be able to fool a robot with your logic but you can’t fool God or a human being because everyone knows what he is up to.

While it is a little difficult to follow your logic in this post, I agree with your conclusion. How ever you may wish to work it out, it is pretty basic that Tyrion is 100% known to God, whereas God is maybe 0.001% known to Tyrion. Being really generous here and a bit facetious.

 

[Lion_IRC]

I assume you haven’t read through the thread. We have already covered this ground, and several people proposed different third-party solutions. Tyrion said that he doesn’t want a third party introduced into his hypothetical…

How convenient that the mechanism which WOULD verify God’s foreknowledge is not allowed to be used in the experiment.

This sophistry is lame.

Human : Guess which I’m gonna toss - heads or tails.
God : OK. I’ve made my omniscient prophecy.
Human : What did you predict?
God : Why do I have to tell you? Cant I just write it on a piece of paper and put it in a sealed envelope?
Human : You gotta tell me me what you predict so I can, on purpose, do the opposite.
God : You call THAT an experiment?

 

[Lion_IRC]

Nothing is being tested.

 

[Lion_IRC]

This thread OP counter-apologetic reminds me of the bible skeptics who claim that Jesus did stuff on purpose simply to make it appear as if He was fulfilling ancient prophecies.
(Eg. Riding into Jerusalem on a donkey)

If Messiah doesn’t fulfil those biblical prophecies skeptics say…**Ha! Imposter! **
And if He does, skeptics say…Ha! Imposter!

 

[Love4All]

This thread OP counter-apologetic reminds me of the bible skeptics who claim that Jesus did stuff on purpose simply to make it appear as if He was fulfilling ancient prophecies.
(Eg. Riding into Jerusalem on a donkey)

If Messiah doesn’t fulfil those biblical prophecies skeptics say…**Ha! Imposter! **
And if He does, skeptics say…Ha! Imposter!

The same thing happened even in Jesus’s day. “John the Baptist came neither eating nor drinking, and you say, ‘He hath a demon.’ The Son of Man came both eating and drinking, and you say, ‘A glutton, and a friend of sinners!’ Yet Wisdom is vindicated by her deeds.”

 

[tdgesq]

Can God answer a question correctly when the answer will always be the opposite of God’s?

Obviously not. Candide is right. Why is this still an issue?