Double trouble!

[Love4All]

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

Obviously not.

ok. . .

Candide is right.

Wrong.

Why is this still an issue?

Because Candide has incorrectly stated that,

1. God cannot demonstrate His Omniscience if He cannot answer a legitimate question,
2. and He cannot answer a legitimate question, so
3. He cannot demonstrate His Omniscience.

It is not true that God cannot answer a legitimate question. It is true that a question whose answer will always be the opposite of God’s is not legitimate.

 

[CandideWest]

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.

In which case your position is inconsistent. To be clear you said “He (God) states what exactly will happen in the future”. So you specifically stated that God’s prediction WILL be correct (a statement that you repeat below) but you also state that it is possible for Tyrion to choose contrary to God’s prediction.

Lets walk you through this step by step. What happens is as follows:

1. Tyrion asks God “Am I going to choose A or B?”
2. God says “you’re going to choose A”
3. Tyrion makes his decision.

The question is, at point 3 where Tyrion is making his decision is he able to choose B.

If your answer is that God’s prediction MUST be correct (in other words there are no possible worlds in which Tyrion chooses B at this point) then Tyrion has NO CHOICE. It is simply logically impossible for him to choose B.

If your answer is that Tyrion can choose A or B (in other words that there ARE possible worlds where Tyrion chooses B at this point) then the thought experiment Tyrion has created is set in one of the possible worlds where he does indeed choose B and therefore we must assume God’s prediction was incorrect.

You see now, it is meaningless to state that Tyrion COULD choose contrary to God’s prediction but WON’T because that is outside Tyrions thought experiment. You might as well just replace Tyrions question with “what’s two plus two” and point out that God can correctly answer that question.

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?

Many worlds theory is a tool for showing alternative POSSIBLE futures or histories each representing a “world”. Thus far you have argued both that there are and that there are not possible worlds in which Tyrion chooses contrary to God’s prediction. Thus your position is inconsistent.

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.

Ahh maybe this is where you have been going wrong. You see you’ve got things out of sequence. In this thought experiment God’s prediction comes BEFORE Tyrion’s decision. Not afterwards. That would be a very silly thought experiment indeed. It would be like a weather forcaster who can only predict yesterdays weather.

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.

Frankly I don’t care which argument you pick, but progress thus far has been flipflopping between two contradictory positions with steadily increasing speed. And trying to claim that between them God can do the logically impossible. It’s a bit silly but not something that concerns me unduly.

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.

Er, no. It’s you who is saying that there is no possible world in which Tyrion chooses B after God predicted A. Oddly it is also you who is arguing that there ARE possible worlds in which Tyrion chooses B after God predicted A. Mostly you are just arguing with yourself here, I’m just providing a running commentary as you do so.

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

So how would he correctly answer the question “what answer will never be given to this question?” It’s designed to be logically impossible to answer correctly, despite the existence of perfectly valid answers. So how could God provide me with that piece of particular knowledge?

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

If this is the case then why not try writing out a CONSISTENT argument which shows it, instead of just repeating an assertion that it is so.

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.

Both questions are valid. In one case there is a single correct answer (which is contingent upon and inverse to whatever answer is given), which God is being asked for. In the other there are an infinitely large number of correct answers (like some mathematical equations) which God is being ask for one of.

However, in neither case is God able to correctly provide a correct answer. I’m not sure why you are struggling with this so much, but I’ll walk you through step by step if you need it.

 

[CandideWest]

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

And yet weirdly it’s only you who has talked about Tyrion being omnipotent. Not me. Again I fear it’s yourself you are arguing with here, not me.

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

Then why not DEMONSTRATE this error using logic, instead of just keep on asserting that there is one. I’ve demonstrated your errors several times now, it isn’t hard to do if they are there.

 

[CandideWest]

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.

Er, you’ve just tied yourself in a knot there. If Tyrion chooses A - this is the same as God’s prediction “you will choose A” therefore he hasn’t chosen the opposite of what God predicted.

So God’s statement “Tyrion, you will do the opposite of what I say you will do” was wrong.

 

[CandideWest]

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?

??? I’ve already explained repeatedly that this has been openly set up from the outset to be a rigged game to make it impossible for God to provide the correct answer, despite the existence of a correct answer. And you are still complaining that the game is rigged???

Yes, we know it is rigged. That is the point of the whole situation.

 

[CandideWest]

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!

Er. then I think you have misunderstood those people.

Mostly they talk the people writing the bible decades after the supposed events CLAIMING that Jesus did things to fulfill ancient prophecies. The evidence they cite for this is often the fact that those authors sometimes refer to prophecies which are simply not in the old testament at all. At other times the NT authors refer to prophecies which refer to unrelated events (in some cases prophecies which are shown as being fulfilled in the old testament itself), and the NT authors also make prophecies which were not fulfilled.

This is just an aside and WAY off topic, so I’ll not reply any further on this subject. Please go ahead if you’d like to have the last word.

 

[CandideWest]

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?

Thanks, I’m afraid I have no idea why this is causing such consternation. To me it was a simple little thing and no problem whatsoever for Christian theology.

What can you do eh?

 

[JamesATyler]

Er, you’ve just tied yourself in a knot there. If Tyrion chooses A - this is the same as God’s prediction “you will choose A” therefore he hasn’t chosen the opposite of what God predicted.

So God’s statement “Tyrion, you will do the opposite of what I say you will do” was wrong.

God said he would do the opposite yet Tyrion did the same. That is the opposite of God’s prediction. Tyrion is just as limited as God in the experiment. Tyrion states he will always do the opposite of what God predicts. Therefore by telling Tyrion the truth, “You will do the opposite”, Tyrion is correctly predicted in every circumstance no matter what he chooses.

God says “You will do the opposite of what I predict”. He predicts A. Tyrion chooses A which is the opposite of God’s prediction. It is clear that God has actually predicted B. If Tyrion chooses B then it is clear that God prediction is also true, as B is the opposite of A.

By making the prediction in this way (By telling the truth) it doesn’t matter which option Tyrion chooses. There is no right answer for him either because Tyrion always chooses the opposite of God’s actual prediction, as per the rules.

 

[Tyrion]

My goodness… is this thread still going on? I had a nice vacation, and I was wondering if this thread is now on the 3rd page in the past… looks like not. Candide, I admire your tenacity to deal with the same “non-arguments” over and over again. It is very depressing to see that despite the clear and conscise explanations - some people are unable to comprehend them.

There is only one thing I am wondering. Why do you call my question “rigged”? This word has a negative connotation, and I see nothing improper about my question. If the concept of omniscience would entail “knowledge of the future”, then it would be a legitimate question to ask: “what will happen under certain - very specific - circumstances?”. Clearly, if the future were predictable, then such a question could be answered - and in certain circumstances it can be answered.

Specifically, if the event is deterministic, and one has a full knowledge of the initial circumstances, and also full knowledge of the laws governing the event, then a future event could be predicted. Of course this does not apply to a non-deterministic event, an example of which is an event coming fro exercising one’s free will. I don’t believe that such an event can be predicted, but that is beside the point right now.

In this thread it is stipulated that an event of free will is possible to predict. But as it turned out it is only possible under certain circumstances. And that contradicts God’s alleged “absolute” nature. As it is proven now, God can - at most - only make an accurate prediction, if he DOES NOT reveal that prediction beforehand. As such God’s ability to make an accurate prediction is CONTINGENT upon keeping that prediction “secret”. And since God is “simple” (has no parts), therefore God is CONTINGENT.

To believe something which is unproven (but may be proven sometime), could be a rational course of action. But, to believe something which cannot be proven - not just now, but cannot be proven theoretically - is a “beautiful” example of “blind faith”, and “blind” faith is as irrational as it comes.

Anyhow… have fun. I am about to take another nice vacation. When I come back, I might check out the board, though it is not certain.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

My goodness… is this thread still going on? I had a nice vacation, and I was wondering if this thread is now on the 3rd page in the past… looks like not. Candide, I admire your tenacity to deal with the same “non-arguments” over and over again. It is very depressing to see that despite the clear and conscise explanations - some people are unable to comprehend them.

There is only one thing I am wondering. Why do you call my question “rigged”? This word has a negative connotation, and I see nothing improper about my question. If the concept of omniscience would entail “knowledge of the future”, then it would be a legitimate question to ask: “what will happen under certain - very specific - circumstances?”. Clearly, if the future were predictable, then such a question could be answered - and in certain circumstances it can be answered.

Specifically, if the event is deterministic, and one has a full knowledge of the initial circumstances, and also full knowledge of the laws governing the event, then a future event could be predicted. Of course this does not apply to a non-deterministic event, an example of which is an event coming fro exercising one’s free will. I don’t believe that such an event can be predicted, but that is beside the point right now.

In this thread it is stipulated that an event of free will is possible to predict. But as it turned out it is only possible under certain circumstances. And that contradicts God’s alleged “absolute” nature. As it is proven now, God can - at most - only make an accurate prediction, if he DOES NOT reveal that prediction beforehand. As such God’s ability to make an accurate prediction is CONTINGENT upon keeping that prediction “secret”. And since God is “simple” (has no parts), therefore God is CONTINGENT.

To believe something which is unproven (but may be proven sometime), could be a rational course of action. But, to believe something which cannot be proven - not just now, but cannot be proven theoretically - is a “beautiful” example of “blind faith”, and “blind” faith is as irrational as it comes.

Anyhow… have fun. I am about to take another nice vacation. When I come back, I might check out the board, though it is not certain.

theres no point talking to you if you don’t respond. its probably impossible to talk to someone who does not respond and even moreso with the omniscient knowledge that they will not respond.
in your ‘beautiful’ example an omniscient God knows all that you are doing and will do in your experiment but since you demand an answer at a particular point in your experiment and intend to choose the opposite answer based on it it becomes a contradiction not an experiment.
in an experiment there is always an end result to be examined but in your experiment you demand the answer before the end. the answer is that an omniscient God knows the answer and will wait until the point of your death to give you the final answer as that will be the end of the experiment and the logical place for an answer.

 

[JamesATyler]

It is actually very simple now that I understand it. God predicts the truth. Sometimes that is the future. God would not say “You will choose A or B”.and leave it at that because that is not the whole truth. He would tell Tyrion the whole truth. “You will choose the opposite.” That is in fact what Tyrion is bound to do because it Tyrions ultimate aim to disprove God’s predictive ability. It is something about Tyrion that basic to his nature and unless he repents and turns to the truth he will always choose the opposite.

 

[Gricken]

…did he just ignore our point about the question falling short of his intended target?

 

[CandideWest]

God said he would do the opposite yet Tyrion did the same. That is the opposite of God’s prediction. Tyrion is just as limited as God in the experiment. Tyrion states he will always do the opposite of what God predicts. Therefore by telling Tyrion the truth, “You will do the opposite”, Tyrion is correctly predicted in every circumstance no matter what he chooses.

God says “You will do the opposite of what I predict”. He predicts A. Tyrion chooses A which is the opposite of God’s prediction. It is clear that God has actually predicted B.

Well therein lies the problem then, you have God explicitly saying “You will choose A” which is a lie if Tyrion actually chooses B (by the way I call it a lie rather than an incorrect answer becuase you have stated above that God knew that the real answer would be B and still said “You will choose A”).

I’ll grant you it’s a nice little piece of tangled sophistry. But once you work it out you’re still in the same boat.

 

[JamesATyler]

I think the thought experiment has been a good one regardless of how Tyrion and others wish to walk away from it. It has helped me come to a greater understanding of God. We know that God is not bound to choose a wrong answer. This is something that we believe in as Christians. It has helped me to realize that God’s predictions are accurate because God fully knows the truth in all things. In this example, God simply tells Tyrion the truth and in all possible futures it would be shown that God has spoken the truth. I think this is how he relates to all of us. It is by telling us the truth and our eventual recognition that God speaks true that we come to see and know him as God.

 

[JamesATyler]

Well therein lies the problem then, you have God explicitly saying “You will choose A” which is a lie if Tyrion actually chooses B.

I’ll grant you it’s a nice little piece of tangled sophistry. But once you work it out you’re still in the same boat.

It’s a fact that Tyrion must choose the opposite of God’s prediction or else he fails to prove God wrong. God simply has to tell Tyrion the truth. It doesn’t matter whether he chooses A or B. It must be the opposite or he can’t claim that God has predicted falsely.

 

[CandideWest]

It’s a fact that Tyrion must choose the opposite of God’s prediction or else he fails to prove God wrong. God simply has to tell Tyrion the truth. It doesn’t matter whether he chooses A or B. It must be the opposite or he can’t claim that God has predicted falsely.

So you are agreeing that your solution is that God tells a lie?

Remember if God says “You will choose A” knowing full well that Tyrion is in fact going to choose B then that is a lie. No amount of sophistry changes that.

 

[polytropos]

My goodness… is this thread still going on? I had a nice vacation, and I was wondering if this thread is now on the 3rd page in the past… looks like not. Candide, I admire your tenacity to deal with the same “non-arguments” over and over again. It is very depressing to see that despite the clear and conscise explanations - some people are unable to comprehend them.

There is only one thing I am wondering. Why do you call my question “rigged”? This word has a negative connotation, and I see nothing improper about my question. If the concept of omniscience would entail “knowledge of the future”, then it would be a legitimate question to ask: “what will happen under certain - very specific - circumstances?”. Clearly, if the future were predictable, then such a question could be answered - and in certain circumstances it can be answered.

It’s ironic that you are praising Candide for continuing to debate the theists in this thread because what is actually agreed upon by both Candide and the theists is that your thought experiment is not problematic for Catholic theology. You praise Candide for his arguments and immediately go on to dispute his point.

In this thread it is stipulated that an event of free will is possible to predict. But as it turned out it is only possible under certain circumstances. And that contradicts God’s alleged “absolute” nature. As it is proven now, God can - at most - only make an accurate prediction, if he DOES NOT reveal that prediction beforehand. As such God’s ability to make an accurate prediction is CONTINGENT upon keeping that prediction “secret”. And since God is “simple” (has no parts), therefore God is CONTINGENT.

You have only proven that God’s omniscience does not enable him to answer logically impossible questions, as we would expect. God’s ability to make an accurate prediction is contingent on the question having a logically possible answer. God has all knowledge and no non-knowledge.

 

[tonyrey]

It’s ironic that you are praising Candide for continuing to debate the theists in this thread because what is actually agreed upon by both Candide and the theists is that your thought experiment is not problematic for Catholic theology. You praise Candide for his arguments and immediately go on to dispute his point.

You have only proven that God’s omniscience does not enable him to answer logically impossible questions, as we would expect. God’s ability to make an accurate prediction is contingent on the question having a logically possible answer. God has all knowledge and no non-knowledge.

Your progress is promising and impressive!

 

[polytropos]

Maybe. I am a good mimic.

 

[Lochias]

It’s ironic that you are praising Candide for continuing to debate the theists in this thread because what is actually agreed upon by both Candide and the theists is that your thought experiment is not problematic for Catholic theology. You praise Candide for his arguments and immediately go on to dispute his point.

You have only proven that God’s omniscience does not enable him to answer logically impossible questions, as we would expect. God’s ability to make an accurate prediction is contingent on the question having a logically possible answer. God has all knowledge and no non-knowledge.

THANK you. The OP might as well have asked God, “If a jetski was rolling down the ocean and a wheel fell off, how many pancakes would it take to cover a doghouse?”

That the OP expects us to take this kind of “logic” seriously is, to be honest, a little frightening.