Double trouble!

[Love4All]

It seems like to me, that if God says that Tyrion will choose A then there are no possible worlds where Tyrion chooses B. For what ever reason, Tyrion decides to choose A. If Tyrion claims he won’t choose A then he must be telling a lie because we know that God doesn’t lie.

In his original post, Tyrion is telling a lie when he says he will do something different than what God predicts. Conclusion, Tyrion is a liar. That’s more believable than God predicting wrong.

Well done!

 

[CandideWest]

Right, I’m going to focus on this bit as it offers by far the best hope for progress.

Try to follow: Yes.

So, for clarity… “So, we are at the decision point. God has predicted that Tyrion will choose “A”. Is it now possible (are there possible worlds) where Tyrion picks B?”

And you have answered “Yes”.

So, you have said that there are worlds where after God has predicted that Tyrion will choose “A” he has in fact chosen “B”.

However, I am fairly convinced that you didn’t ask the question you meant to ask. I answered your question correctly, but I believe what you meant to ask me is:

"Are there possible worlds where Tyrion picks B AND God said, “you’re going to choose A.”?

The answer to THAT question — different from the question you asked me — is plainly, “No.”

And another elegant flipflop.

Your flipflopping between positions has now accellerated to consecutive paragraphs. I wonder how long until you use both to contradict yourself in a single sentence

However — and this is a very, very important point, which I am nearly certain that you are going to object to, even though you will be unable to say why — Tyrion is free to choose either option. God’s prediction, to Tyrion’s face, of what Tyrion does in fact choose, does not negate the fact that Tyrion is free to choose either option. He just, will not in fact choose the option that God does not predict. He might plan to, but when the time comes to actually decide, he won’t.

I object to it because if Tyrion has the choice then there are (by definition) possible worlds in which he actually does make that choice. You cannot say that Tyrion has a choice and COULD pick B (it is possible for him to do so) after God has predicted that he will pick A and still maintain that it is impossible for Tyrion to actually pick B (in other words that there are no possible worlds where he picks B) after God has predicted that he will pick A.

To be clear, the whole principle of possible worlds is to have a world for every POSSIBLE outcome. So if we have reached the decision point (in other words the following has happened)

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

If at this point there are no possible worlds where Tyrion chooses B, then it is IMPOSSIBLE for him to do so. Simply saying “er it’s possible but… but… but he won’t” is not adequate because possible worlds accounts for the decision going both ways as long as they are both POSSIBLE.

Well, the answer, as we see, is not quite so simple. And that is because, while you were pretending to ask a simple question, what you really meant to ask, wasn’t. The question you really meant to ask was complex. It was not, “can Tyrion choose B?” but rather, “can Tyrion choose B, given that Tyrion chooses A?”

No, the question is simple, and there are two potential answers - “yes” and “no”. The problem here is that you don’t like either of those two options so you are trying to evade the question and answer a more comfortable one instead. That’s why you went off and asked yourself all those other questions and answered them instead.

I’m afraid that doesn’t fly, it is either possible (there are possible worlds) or it is impossible (there are no possible worlds).

So, lets try again…

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.

So, we are at the decision point. God has predicted that Tyrion will choose “A”. Is it now possible (are there possible worlds) where Tyrion picks B? If you can answer that one question with a simple “yes” or “no”. Then we can move forwards.

Lets try to answer a simple question with a simple answer shall we?

Explain to me how a question that is impossible to answer correctly is legitimate.

I just did “there are a defined set of correct answers.”

Ah! THANK YOU for finally exposing your real problem.

You wish to argue — have been wishing all along to argue — that if God is omniscient, free will cannot be real.

Nope, once again this is just evasion. Trying to shift to a different topic. My contention as I have held throughout is that it is impossible for God to DEMONSTRATE his omniscience because it is possible to ask him valid questions which he cannot answer correctly.

Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[CandideWest]

Many-worlds interpretation is one interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

Possible worlds is a philosophical device.

They are NOT the same things! They are similar only in name. Perhaps you should stop conflating them.

We are not discussing QM, so we won’t be using MWI. We are discussing philosophical hypotheticals, and possible worlds scenarios will serve us just fine, if only we can both begin using them correctly.

Indeed, I was trying to demonstrate the idea of using the tool to determine possibilities at a given point. Poorly stated perhaps. I’ll leave this to one side and pursue the step by step approach we are following in the other set of replies. That seems to have the best promise of progress.

I wasn’t giving you a possible answer. I was requesting of you to cite a possible correct answer.

And, you can’t. Thanks for playing!

Of course not, it’s been designed that way deliberately.

If it isn’t given, how is it an answer?

If nobody ever solves an equation does that mean that the answer doesn’t exist? Of course not, that’s just silly.

Not if they are not given as answers. What is an answer?

In this context an answer is a correct solution to a problem.

That was a request of you, not an answer.

While this is perhaps an interesting diversion from topic, it is starting to get tedious. Your question, “what answer will not be given?” has nothing whatsoever to do with the OP. Since it is actually getting tedious by now and less fun, I really don’t care to analyze it any more.

Fair enough, to be honest I never imagined we’d have to go around this buoy so many times. It was just another (simpler) example of a valid question which cannot be answered correctly.

God says, “The one I am not thinking.”

That isn’t the answer, that is a description of the answer. What is being described cannot be expressed. “Nothing” is not a thing.

Sure, and the answer that God is not thinking of is the correct one, not the words “The one I am not thinking.” that is now just another wrong answer. But God can of course THINK of all the right answers in his mind if he chooses (after all as an omniscient being he has a complete list of them all).

 

[Love4All]

Love4All:

God says, “The one I am not thinking.”

That isn’t the answer, that is a description of the answer. What is being described cannot be expressed. “Nothing” is not a thing.

Sure, and the answer that God is not thinking of is the correct one, not the words “The one I am not thinking.” that is now just another wrong answer. But God can of course THINK of all the right answers in his mind if he chooses (after all as an omniscient being he has a complete list of them all).

The finger pointing to the moon is not the moon.

 

[JamesATyler]

The example is setup in such a way that Tyrion asserts he is telling the truth when he says he will choose to do something different from God’s prediction. Therefore, God is the liar and Tyrion tells the truth. Tyrion gives us his word on it.

Fellow Catholics, if you were there, I don’t need to ask you which choice you think Tyrion will choose if God says Tyrion will choose A.

One of them must be lying, though, that much is clear.

All the question boils down to is, “Can God be forced to tell a lie?”

 

[tdgesq]

All the question boils down to is, “Can God be forced to tell a lie?”

I’m afraid not. God does not have to answer at all, so that can’t really be the question.

 

[Love4All]

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.

So, we are at the decision point. God has predicted that Tyrion will choose “A”. Is it now possible (are there possible worlds) where Tyrion picks B?

Yes. There are ALWAYS possible worlds where Tyrion makes either choice. But again, you didn’t ask the question you meant to ask.

 

[Gorgias]

Since Christian theists readily admit that God’s omnipotence doesn’t include an ability to engage in a logical contradiction, Tyrion’s argument against God’s omnipotence fails.

Tyrion’s second assertion… suffers from a variety of defects, not the least of which is that God may remain silent on the matter, in which case there aren’t any implications for God’s omniscience. … It does not show that God’s knowledge is contingent upon Tyrion’s answer. Tyrion’s argument against God’s omniscience fails.

Tyrion could argue that if God wanted to correctly answer Tyrion, he couldn’t. But that is a conditional proposition, and it proves nothing about whether God’s acts (of any kind - even lack of action) are really contingent upon Tyrion’s acts. Perhaps more importantly, I find it highly doubtful that God’s decision to act based upon a free human response is a contingency that would compromise the “absolute” nature of God. There is also the not-so-small problem that it is stipulated that Tyrion always will choose an answer opposed to God’s, making any kind of contingency illusory at best.

Nice analysis. Your first point falls in line with Candide’s analysis; it’ll be interesting to see whether Tyrion returns, and if he does, whether he addresses your claims with any new lines of argumentation…

 

[Lion_IRC]

Not really, the question in the OP is valid (that is to say that there is a correct answer or answers), it is just not possible for God to answer correctly.

CandideWest, I dont know why you persist with this “mirage”.

There is a correct answer. One (1) correct answer. And God can know it and He can announce it.

God can declare the correct answer to a third party and/or everyone.

Your so-called experiment is nothing more than coming in AFTER God has declared the answer and then auto-gainsaying.

You are equivocating on the word “answer” because the original question generates one (1) unique answer. And yet you subsequently CHANGE your “answer” after God has given it.

Thus you are presenting a different answer to the question God answered.

You ask God, how many fingers am I holding up behind my back? (Three fingers)

God answers three. (Hint for atheists - THIS is where God demonstrates His omniscience)
And THEN you deliberately change the number of fingers specifically in order to (dishonestly) claim that you were not originally holding up three fingers.

You have no choice BUT to change the number of fingers. You MUST. Otherwise “puppet god” is proven correct.

Your so-called experiment is just a strawman movie script.

 

[JamesATyler]

I’m afraid not. God does not have to answer at all, so that can’t really be the question.

You are saying Tyrion can reduce God to silence by asking the right question?

 

[Lion_IRC]

…Christian theists readily admit that God’s omnipotence doesn’t include an ability to engage in a logical contradiction…

More specifically, God’s omnipotence is absolute and any apparent illogic we perceive or suspect is a mental inability on our part to reconcile His perfectly logical action with what we mistakenly think is illogical.

Eg. God doing “good” which we mistakenly think is evil. Yet good and evil are logical opposites so a human could use “logic” to claim God is acting evil. Can a thing be good and evil at the same time? Square circle?

 

[JamesATyler]

I’m afraid not. God does not have to answer at all, so that can’t really be the question.

Tyrion is suggesting that God can be reduced to silence by saying “Hey I have a square and a circle.” One I will give to you and one I will keep. Can you tell me which one you will get?

God Almighty is reduced to silence because he can’t say “No I can’t tell you”.

Surely, he would have something to say and wouldn’t it be wise? Or, everytime Tyrion comes around and hears God talking about his attributes, Tyrion will say “There’s God spouting off again. Watch I’ll shut him up.”

 

[tdgesq]

Nice analysis. Your first point falls in line with Candide’s analysis; it’ll be interesting to see whether Tyrion returns, and if he does, whether he addresses your claims with any new lines of argumentation…

Thank you! It was getting a bit lonely having only the non-theists agree.

You are saying Tyrion can reduce God to silence by asking the right question?

No.

More specifically, God’s omnipotence is absolute and any apparent illogic we perceive or suspect is a mental inability on our part to reconcile His perfectly logical action with what we mistakenly think is illogical.

The laws of logic and thought were created by God to give us knowledge and truth. They are not sometimes true and sometimes false. Could I be mistaken in my analysis of this issue? Sure, but so could you. That’s why we present arguments that conform to the rules of logic that God has given us. You are giving an argument to me now based upon those rules, whether you know it or not.

Can a thing be good and evil at the same time? Square circle?

No they cannot. Not even for God. Logic is God’s language, not mine. He created it so we could come to know the truth. There isn’t a truth for us and a different truth for God. It is simply that - truth. As stated by St. Thomas Aquinas:

I answer that, All confess that God is omnipotent; but it seems difficult to explain in what His omnipotence precisely consists: for there may be doubt as to the precise meaning of the word ‘all’ when we say that God can do all things. If, however, we consider the matter aright, since power is said in reference to possible things, this phrase, “God can do all things,” is rightly understood to mean that God can do all things that are possible; and for this reason He is said to be omnipotent.

newadvent.org/summa/1025.htm#article3

Tyrion is suggesting that God can be reduced to silence by saying “Hey I have a square and a circle.” One I will give to you and one I will keep. Can you tell me which one you will get?

God can answer, or he can choose not answer. What he can’t do is give a false answer. And it would be a false answer to assert that he can tell Tyrion which one he will get, at least under the conditions specified.

God Almighty is reduced to silence because he can’t say “No I can’t tell you”.

That isn’t silence, but if he chose to speak he could not give Tyrion the correct answer to his question under the conditions specified.

Surely, he would have something to say and wouldn’t it be wise? Or, everytime Tyrion comes around and hears God talking about his attributes, Tyrion will say “There’s God spouting off again. Watch I’ll shut him up.”

Perhaps. God Incarnate refused to answer Pilate and the other accusers, and there he could have certainly done it. God refused to answer Job when he demanded an explanation for his suffering. Of course, God could shut up Tyrion if he so desired. He did it to Job, who ended up repenting in sackcloth and ashes. He did it to St. Paul on the road to Dasmacus. He did it to Zechariah.

Here though, Tyrion sets forth the condition that his free will stays intact and that he will choose to always answer contrary to any answer God may give. Is this a logically possible state of affairs? Sure. How God actually chooses to deal with Tyrion is up to him, not us. We do know that God will not lie to Tyrion, nor will he will violate his own laws of logic that ultimately lead to truth and knowledge.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Lion IRC:

More specifically, God’s omnipotence is absolute and any apparent illogic we perceive or suspect is a mental inability on our part to reconcile His perfectly logical action with what we mistakenly think is illogical.

The laws of logic and thought were created by God to give us knowledge and truth. They are not sometimes true and sometimes false. Could I be mistaken in my analysis of this issue? Sure, but so could you. That’s why we present arguments that conform to the rules of logic that God has given us. You are giving an argument to me now based upon those rules, whether you know it or not.

Agreement between two (mistaken) humans as to what God can and cannot do in no way binds God’s omnipotence.
As you say, the laws were made by God, but they dont impose a law on God. If God acts in a way we and God find logical it is because He rightly chooses to do so of His own divine prerogative.

Lion IRC:

More specifically, God’s omnipotence is absolute and any apparent illogic we perceive or suspect is a mental inability on our part to reconcile His perfectly logical action with what we mistakenly think is illogical.

Eg. God doing “good” which we mistakenly think is evil. Yet good and evil are logical opposites so a human could use “logic” to claim God is acting evil. Can a thing be good and evil at the same time? Square circle?

No they cannot. Not even for God. Logic is God’s language, not mine. He created it so we could come to know the truth. There isn’t a truth for us and a different truth for God. It is simply that - truth. As stated by St. Thomas Aquinas:

It is perfectly possible for humans to (mistakenly) apply logic and arrive at the conclusion that God is acting in an evil way. The question was, can a thing be good and evil at the same time?

Take a look at any theodicy/Euthyphro debate and clearly there are, in the case of some things, logical arguments that “X” is good and different valid, logical arguments that “X’” is evil.
Of course we look to a transcendent arbiter - God - for an omniscient ruling to settle the matter, but that merely proves the point that God could rule either way and we couldnt argue against Him because our argument premises are tentative.

…I answer that, All confess that God is omnipotent; but it seems difficult to explain in what His omnipotence precisely consists: for there may be doubt as to the precise meaning of the word ‘all’ when we say that God can do all things.

Difficult to explain? Really? I think omnipotence is so easy to define that you can do so in just one word - omnipotent.

…If, however, we consider the matter aright, since power is said in reference to possible things, this phrase, “God can do all things,” is rightly understood to mean that God can do all things that are possible; and for this reason He is said to be omnipotent.

That seems like a tautology. The list of things that are possible for an omnipotent Being = all things.
And to try and qualify it by saying all things logically possible, raises the question about whether our logic is faulty in deciding which things God can and cannot do.

 

[Lion_IRC]

http://ethikapolitika.org/wp-content/uploads/Square-circle.gif

 

[Tyrion]

All he has proven is that God cannot answer a question correctly when the answer will always be different than God’s. Of course, requiring God to answer what is by definition an unanswerable question would be to require God to engage in a logical contradiction.

You are mistaken. This type of question is fundamentally different from asking: how many sides does a “square triangle” have? While the question about a “square trinagle” is nonsensical by its very nature, there is nothing inherently contradictory about asking of the outcome of a future event. It only becomes problematic when the questioner uses his free will to purposefully invalidate God’s answer. And that shows the limitation of God - imposed by the questioner. (Asimov’s wonderful book: “The End of Eternity” shows some of the problems stemming from knowing our future.)

Since Christian theists readily admit that God’s omnipotence doesn’t include an ability to engage in a logical contradiction, Tyrion’s argument against God’s omnipotence fails.

Most of them, for sure, but not all of them! Some assert that God can create a “stone so heavy that he cannot lift it”. And they say that God can create that “stone”, and then can lift it. By the way, if the laws of logic are “binding” on God, then God is not “limitless”.

This is Tyrion’s second assertion. It suffers from a variety of defects, not the least of which is that God may remain silent on the matter, in which case there aren’t any implications for God’s omniscience. But even if God were to answer Tyrion’s skeptical challenge and say “I cannot answer that question correctly, because you will always offer a different answer,” it still doesn’t mean God doesn’t know what the correct answer is.

The point is that there is no “correct” answer.

It does not show that God’s knowledge is contingent upon Tyrion’s answer.

Incorrect. Not my “answer”, rather my hypothesised “action”.

God is not required to answer. Tyrion could argue that if God wanted to correctly answer Tyrion, he couldn’t. But that is a conditional proposition, and it proves nothing about whether God’s acts (of any kind - even lack of action) are really contingent upon Tyrion’s acts.

Just “saying” so, does not “make it so”.

Perhaps more importantly, I find it highly doubtful that God’s decision to act based upon a free human response is a contingency that would compromise the “absolute” nature of God.

That is a logically nonsensical proposition. If something is dependent upon something else, then there is a contingency.

There is also the not-so-small problem that it is stipulated that Tyrion always will choose an answer opposed to God’s, making any kind of contingency illusory at best.

Again, not “will”, but “can”. If God would predict that selecting certain numbers will allow me to win the next jackpot on Powerball, I would gladly follow that prediction.

 

[Tyrion]

No they cannot. Not even for God. Logic is God’s language, not mine. He created it so we could come to know the truth. There isn’t a truth for us and a different truth for God. It is simply that - truth. As stated by St. Thomas Aquinas:

I answer that, All confess that God is omnipotent; but it seems difficult to explain in what His omnipotence precisely consists: for there may be doubt as to the precise meaning of the word ‘all’ when we say that God can do all things. If, however, we consider the matter aright, since power is said in reference to possible things, this phrase, “God can do all things,” is rightly understood to mean that God can do all things that are possible; and for this reason He is said to be omnipotent.

I am glad for this quote. It actually shows that the “omnimax” attributes are simply undefined. After all what does it mean that “God can do all things that can be done”? Does this definition allow us to discern that God can do “A” but cannot do “B”?

By the same token, if “omniscient” means “to know everyting that is knowable”, we face the same problem. Can God know something that does not exist? To those who are Molinists, the answer is “yes”, they refer to this as God’s “middle knowledge”. They say that God knows not only what exists, but also what could exist. To illustrate how nonsensical this proposition is, consider: “there is no book on my desk. What IS its title?” Not: "what could be its title?, rather “what IS”. If God could “know something that does not exist”, then there would be a specific answer, giving that title. But this is nonsense! If there is no book on my desk, it has no title! And as such God cannot know it.

Now this is obvious. (Yet I wonder if someone will try to argue against it… ) The true problem comes here: “does the future exist?”.

 

[CandideWest]

The finger pointing to the moon is not the moon.

Exactly, so God can refer to correct answers and identify them in his own mind, but cannot actually give them. Well done

 

[CandideWest]

Yes. There are ALWAYS possible worlds where Tyrion makes either choice. But again, you didn’t ask the question you meant to ask.

Ok, so just to be clear and unambiguous, have you now stated that even though God has stated a prediction that Tyrion will choose A, Tyrion is still able to choose B (in other words there are possible worlds where following Gods prediction of “A” Tyrion actually chooses “B”).

 

[CandideWest]

You are equivocating on the word “answer” because the original question generates one (1) unique answer. And yet you subsequently CHANGE your “answer” after God has given it.

No, I’m afraid you have misunderstood. You see there is only one point at which the decision is made. It comes AFTER the prediction has been made. And is made contrary to that prediction. There is no changing minds involved anywhere in this thought experiment.

Thus you are presenting a different answer to the question God answered.

Yes, but the correct answer is the one which Tyrion presents, not the one God predicted he would present. That is how the question is designed. That is exactly why it is logically impossible for God to answer correctly - it is a logical contradiction to do so.