Double trouble!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tyrion
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Why are you all bickering and complicating things?

Clear definition of omniscience: God knows everything.

Clear definition of omnipotence: God can do anything.

Why look beyond the simplicity? This is not rocket science, it is armchair philosophy.
 
As an example, which you disregarded (again) is “the highest jump that a jumper would have achieved IF he had been born”. No sane person can say that this height can be “known”. Just like no sane person could say that the title of the book which is not on my desk can be “known”. These are examples of something that is “unknowable”.
It’s not just that the height and book cannot be known. There is no height and there is no book. These are NOT examples of “something” that is unknowable. These are examples of nothing, which can’t be known because it isn’t.
This is the ONLY logical sequence of investigation. To posit up front that ONLY God can qualify as being omniscient is simply cheating! Furthermore, to exclude the counterfactuals would be “castrating” the question. No one denies that something that is “in front of your eyes” can be known. The question is, to what extent can something be known which is NOT readily available for examination.
God is not “in” time. Is there anything that is not in front of God’s eyes and readily available for God’s examination? The only thing that God does not see is nothing (ie. counterfactuals), which is not a thing.
 
ALMIGHTY GOD has an answer ready for Tyrion. But none of you seems interested in what God has to say. Strange, that, considering you’ve been talking about Him, and Tyrion talking smack about Him to those who ostensibly love Him. You’d think you guys would want to see God’s solution to the conundrum.

But no one has so much as replied to post #436. Which makes me question your sincerity.

Top of page 30.
 
It’s not just that the height and book cannot be known. There is no height and there is no book. These are NOT examples of “something” that is unknowable. These are examples of nothing, which can’t be known because it isn’t.

God is not “in” time. Is there anything that is not in front of God’s eyes and readily available for God’s examination? The only thing that God does not see is nothing (ie. counterfactuals), which is not a thing.
God’s omniscience includes knowledge of all counterfactuals.
 
But no one has so much as replied to post #436. Which makes me question your sincerity.
Umm… Love? That’s because Tyrion hasn’t represented himself as being a Christian; therefore, he hasn’t presented himself as recognizing the authority of Scripture.

Now, one approach would be to say, “you don’t believe Scripture? Then the conversation cannot continue.” Another approach would be to say “ok… the teachings of the Church engage both faith and reason. Let’s talk about this from the perspective of reason, and see if you can’t come to understand what we’re saying, from that perspective.”
 
That’s one opinion. Others (including some Christians!) dispute it. 😉
How is it even controversial? Did not Our Lord speak of what would have happened in Tyre and Sidon, had they seen the miracles performed in Judea? That is a counterfactual, and that is God asserting knowledge of it.
 
Umm… Love? That’s because Tyrion hasn’t represented himself as being a Christian; therefore, he hasn’t presented himself as recognizing the authority of Scripture.

Now, one approach would be to say, “you don’t believe Scripture? Then the conversation cannot continue.” Another approach would be to say “ok… the teachings of the Church engage both faith and reason. Let’s talk about this from the perspective of reason, and see if you can’t come to understand what we’re saying, from that perspective.”
God does nothing without giving notification through His Prophets. God always justifies Himself.

I know Tyrion does not believe Scripture. That is not the issue here. The issue is whether he has read the Scriptures I gave, which are God’s Fair Warning to Tyrion.

I, the human being, am not taking credit for the wise solution God has shown me. I will only state that it is definitive, and will settle this question once and for all. Tyrion is clever. Perhaps he is more clever than anyone else here. It certainly seems that way, since no one has been able to actually refute him on his own grounds, and if, as Catholics, we believe that God can be known with certainty through the light of Reason, then Tyrion’s conundrum has a logical answer.

Tyrion’s conundrum has a logical answer. I have seen it. I understand it. That is understanding that God has infused in me. I can present it. But God would never do what Tyrion deserves to have done to him, without first warning him.

Jonah walked through Nineveh with the Word of God, “Forty days more and Nineveh will be destroyed!” They heeded Jonah’s warning, repented in sackcloth and ashes, and God spared the great city.

God will not come down with Justice on Tyrion without first offering him Mercy. If Tyrion rejects Mercy, then he will receive Justice. But not before. So God is offering him one last chance to change his mind, and cease and desist in his insolence.

And that is the purpose of the Scriptural passages I quoted. It is irrelevant whether Tyrion believes God or believes Scripture. It is only relevant that he understands the meaning of the words he is reading, and acknowledges that he has been warned. God will take care of the rest.

So reply to post 436!

Or, just continue to spin your wheels and get nowhere. It’s up to you. Free will, remember?
 
To say that an event is “future” for one observer, but it is already “past” for the next one is a perfect example of violating the law of (non)-contradiction.
No, it is a scientifically verifiable fact. Simultaneity is relative, not absolute. Ever hear of Relativity?

Of course he won’t see this. So let him know, if you want him to know.
 
God’s omniscience could include “things” that do not exist

God brings a couple together
they marry but use contraception
as a result, a child that would have brought about significant change in the world is not created

there are consequences to their behaviour
God would know this,
even though no such person will exist

He does have a plan and purpose for us
 
In the case of a being who exists outside of time, and to whom all of what exists in time is ‘in front of (your) eyes’, there is nothing in the physical world – in what we observe as ‘past’, ‘present’, or ‘future’ – which is not readily available for examination.
No, that is not true. The “might be” or “might have been” (counterfactuals) are not readily available for the being outside of time (if such a being exists). So the problem still persists. As such omniscience is still undefined.
From your perspective, yes: the result does not ‘yet’ exist. From the perspective of a person outside of time, it certainly does exist! Your issue here is that you are conflating your perspective, within the constraints of time, with a perspective outside the constraints of time. Before we can continue this discussion, I need you to deal with this issue. Do you recognize that, by definition, God exists outside of time, and therefore, there is no ‘before’ or ‘after’ in God’s eyes, with respect to what God sees? If you don’t like admitting to attributes of God, then substitute “a being outside of the constraint of time”…
I can accept that God is NOT limited by our time, that God is OUTSIDE our time.

What does NOT follow is that all our time is available for examination. And it is demonstrated by the movie analogy!!! 🙂 Even though you (the watcher of the movie) are outside of the timeline of the movie, the events within the movie are NOT available for you UNTIL they actually roll down on the silver screen!! If you worry about the lack of free will in the actors in the movie, just substitute it for a live theater performance - which is not just an analogy, but an actual representation of reality. The actors might stumble (outside the script), might make a blunder (also outside the script), might change their lines (on purpose, or by accident), and the “outside” observer is unaware of these mishaps UNTIL they actually happen. The analogy actually proves my point. Even if God exists outside our time, only those elements are available to examined, which already transpired.
Not true: it’s not existence that’s contingent, it’s the experience of existence! Your example of ‘past’ and ‘future’ only works for those who exist within the constraints of time; for one outside those constraints, it is not a matter of ‘past’ and ‘future’, as you posit: rather, all exists in the ‘now’, although there is awareness of the temporal dimension within the constraints of space-time.
As the “movie analogy” shows, this is not correct. But, even if it were correct, it would bring up an even more serious problem. If the future already would exist, then it would be unchangable (like the past) and therefore our free will would be jeopardized.

Summary: the omnisicence still needs to be refined to account for those pesky counterfactuals. And the movie (live theater) analogy supports that a being outside the time still must “wait” for the events within time to unfold before he/she/it can examine them.
 
Love4All would like this conveyed to you, Tyrion.
Genesis 11: [1] And the earth was of one tongue, and of the same speech. [2] And when they removed from the east, they found a plain in the land of Sennaar, and dwelt in it. [3] And each one said to his neighbour: Come, let us make brick, and bake them with fire. And they had brick instead of stones, and slime instead of mortar. [4] And they said: Come, let us make a city and a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven: and let us make our name famous before we be scattered abroad into all lands. [5] And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of Adam were building.

[6] And he said: Behold, it is one people, and all have one tongue: and they have begun to do this, neither will they leave off from their designs, till they accomplish them in deed. [7] Come ye, therefore, let us go down, and there confound their tongue, that they may not understand one another’ s speech. [8] And so the Lord scattered them from that place into all lands, and they ceased to build the city. [9] And therefore the name thereof was called Babel, because there the language of the whole earth was confounded: and from thence the Lord scattered them abroad upon the face of all countries.

Wisdom 1:[1] Love justice, you that are the judges of the earth. Think of the Lord in goodness, and seek him in simplicity of heart. [2] For he is found by them that tempt him not: and he sheweth himself to them that have faith in him. [3] For perverse thoughts separate from God: and his power, when it is tried, reproveth the unwise:

Ezekiel 3:[17] Son of man, I have made thee a watchman to the house of Israel: and thou shalt hear the word out of my mouth, and shalt tell it them from me. [18] If, when I say to the wicked, Thou shalt surely die: thou declare it not to him, nor speak to him, that he may be converted from his wicked way, and live: the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but I will require his blood at thy hand. [19] But if thou give warning to the wicked, and he be not converted from his wickedness, and from his evil way: he indeed shall die in his iniquity, but thou hast delivered thy soul. [20] Moreover if the just man shall turn away from his justice, and shall commit iniquity: I will lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die, because thou hast not given him warning: he shall die in his sin, and his justices which he hath done, shall not be remembered: but I will require his blood at thy hand.

[21] But if thou warn the just man, that the just may not sin, and he doth not sin: living he shall live, because thou hast warned him, and thou hast delivered thy soul.

Deuteronomy 6:16 You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.

Luke 1:51 . . .He has confused the proud in their inmost thoughts.

The above Scriptures are given by way of fair warning.

God has a question for Tyrion. He will answer Tyrion’s question, but first He will ask him some questions of His own, and will make a particular stipulation before we play. Nothing unreasonable, and here is the question God asks of Tyrion:

After having read the above Scriptures, is it still your desire to prove Me incapable of correctly answering your question, or not? If not, I will commend you on your wisdom, which comes from Me. If so, I will confuse you in your inmost thoughts, and you shall be devastated. I can answer your question, and demonstrate my infallible foreknowledge, and leave your free will intact, all at the same time. Do you doubt My omnipotent power? That is the act of a fool. I leave it up to you. You have received fair warning!

Now which is it going to be? I will await your reply.
 
How is it even controversial? Did not Our Lord speak of what would have happened in Tyre and Sidon, had they seen the miracles performed in Judea? That is a counterfactual, and that is God asserting knowledge of it.
Fair enough. But God knows that counterfactuals are counterfactuals, and He knows that they will not / do not happen, correct? He would not confuse his knowledge of a counterfactual (that there could have been a book on the table) with his knowledge that there never will be a book on the table.
 
Fair enough. But God knows that counterfactuals are counterfactuals, and He knows that they will not / do not happen, correct? He would not confuse his knowledge of a counterfactual (that there could have been a book on the table) with his knowledge that there never will be a book on the table.
Correct.
 
Summary: the omnisicence still needs to be refined to account for those pesky counterfactuals. And the movie (live theater) analogy supports that a being outside the time still must “wait” for the events within time to unfold before he/she/it can examine them.
I agree that omnisicence needs to be refined to remove the conflict between our free will and omnisicence of God. My question from you is what you mean with “wait” in the above paragraph for God which is in the state of timeless. I mean our decision is not known until we make the decision based on our free will which means that God also does not know it. In another hand we have the concept of time that we are restricted to it. This means that God will have the knowledge about our decision when the decision is made which add another dilemma to the previous problem which state that the state of knowledge of God is subject of the time which means that God cannot be in the state of timeless! This conflict can only be resolve if we either accept that we have not free will (that I don’t have any logical prove for it) or we are separated from God (God dose not know anything from our state of our being). Simply you cannot fuse two entities one timeless and the another subject of the time at the same place.
 
E w( (<>T(A) /\ <>T(B) ) /\ G(A) ).

“There exists a possible world wherein (Possibly, Tyrion chooses A, and possibly, Tyrion chooses B.) AND God has predicted A.”

~E w( T(B) /\ G(A) ).

Or more simply,

~( T(B) /\ G(A) ).
Ok, now then for this to be true i believe that for all possible worlds

~<>(T(B) /\ G(A) )
It is not possible for Tyrion to choose B AND God to have predicted A

Correct?
 
This is the place where we can start the analysis. The two scenarios are significantly different. There is no need to elaborate on the “square triangle”, it is simply two contradictory physical characteristics.
Why additional elaboration would constitute a significant difference between the two scenarios is anybody’s guess, but as it turns out no additional elaboration is necessary. That one logically impossible state of affairs includes contradictory physical characteristics and the other does not is certainly a difference, but not one that matters. Both scenarios set forth a logically impossible state of affairs; or do you disagree?
What needs to be examined is: “WHY can God not answer the question, which is contingent upon the action of the questioner?”. The answer is very simple: "because the event which is being asked does NOT exist YET. Becuase it refers to the future - and the future is not absolute - it is contingent upon our actions.
And this is why in my earlier post to you I made the oblique reference to Asimov’s work not providing insight into the ontological probabilities of competing theories of time. McTaggart concludes that there is no such thing as time, as he finds the A series to be internally inconsistent. A theorists disagree, and B theorists also disagree in that time does exist but only as relations to events on the timeline, ie. time only appears to pass to us but does not in reality. Then among B theorists you have Eternalists who claim that all objects past and future exist as a four-dimensional block, but we cannot view them because of the spacetime position in which we find ourselves.
As a matter of fact the second one is not a logical impossibility per-se. It is MADE impossible by the free will of the questioner. And it is possible by the fact that the future does not exist YET
First we would all have to accept a Presentism A-theory of time, which no one here has obliged themselves to do. Even then, to realize this logically impossible event is dependent upon God providing the questioner (Tyrion) with the information about what Tyrion would have chosen. It is only with this information that Tyrion can now “change the future.” But to do so Tyrion must choose an answer inconsistent with God’s. We have the following conditional proposition: If God presents Tyrion with an answer and if Tyrion chooses to give an inconsistent answer, then God cannot answer the question correctly. In that instance, it is logically impossible for God to correctly answer the question - made impossible by the very fact that God gave Tyrion the information in the first instance.
The problem is not with the presented senario, it is with the incorrect assumption that the future is “solid”, “absolute”, and therefore it can not be known. Just refer back to the problem of “what is the title of the book, which is NOT placed on my desk, but may or may not be placed upon it sometime in the future?”.
That is exactly what B-theory Eternalists hypothesize - that there is no future or past, just a four-dimensional spacetime manifold block where all objects exist. If they are correct, then there may be a book that exists at some point in spacetime with an author’s name on it, although we may not have present knowledge of it. In any case, omniscience can still exist under a Presentism A-theory.

Now I get to use an example from Asimov’s first Foundation book that actually has some applicability. There the “psychohistorians” create a very complex algorithm that can accurately p(name removed by moderator)oint the unfolding of human events. God being the creator of the universe and everything in it, as well as having an infinite intellect, can accurately predict all events that occur in the cosmos, whether the event has “happened yet” or not - well, unless it is logically impossible for him to do so.
Of course I would modify my ways based upon the prediction. And since I COULD change my action, it PROVES that the future is contingent, and therefore it cannot be known. The proposed concept of “omnipotence” which is supposed to include the knowledge of the future is thereby PROVEN incorrect.
This is very bizarre reasoning: using a possible worlds thought experiment that results in a logical paradox to prove the ontological status of of future events. The only conclusion that can be reached is that God is not able to give Tyrion the accurate answer under the conditions specified. But, as you put it in a recent post, let’s get down to business.

The only way that the thought experiment works is if God agrees to give an answer about what Tyrion will do. Let’s assume that if God gives an answer it allows Tyrion to “change the future” such that God couldn’t foresee it - making God not omniscient. Could God do this? No, because God can’t do anything that would compromise his omniscience. It’s akin to asking if God can lie or if God can be unjust. So while I think you’ve made a number of questionable assumptions about the nature of time, even if your conclusion is true, you still haven’t proven what you set out to prove.
 
I agree that omnisicence needs to be refined to remove the conflict between our free will and omnisicence of God. My question from you is what you mean with “wait” in the above paragraph for God which is in the state of timeless. I mean our decision is not known until we make the decision based on our free will which means that God also does not know it. In another hand we have the concept of time that we are restricted to it. This means that God will have the knowledge about our decision when the decision is made which add another dilemma to the previous problem which state that the state of knowledge of God is subject of the time which means that God cannot be in the state of timeless! This conflict can only be resolve if we either accept that we have not free will (that I don’t have any logical prove for it) or we are separated from God (God dose not know anything from our state of our being). Simply you cannot fuse two entities one timeless and the another subject of the time at the same place.
free will requires an experience of the moment;
in this moment, we make decisions that will affect our future

creation takes place in the moment

all moments are where God sits
in God’s eternal now, the creation of all existence is happening

He is aware of it all because it is out of His act of being, that all being happens
all moments, all decisions, all things

God knows the decision you make because it is happening in your now
He doesn’t know it before you make it;
He knows it because all nows are contained in His eternal Now

all time is in Him while He remains beyond it
 
Ok, now then for this to be true i believe that for all possible worlds

~<>(T(B) /\ G(A) )
It is not possible for Tyrion to choose B AND God to have predicted A

Correct?
you didn’t ask me; but yes, it is not possible for Tyrion to choose B
he may have intended to do so
but if God knows it happened, it happened
and whatever Tyrion had intended
A will happen

Let me give you a scenario:
God knows that Tyrion will choose A and knows that telling him is necessary for Tyrion to be saved
God comes to Tyrion in a dream and tells him, “You will choose A”
Gazing into God’s eyes, Tyrion recognizes the compassion of our Lord
within which Tyrion sees himself
inside Tyrion, an emotional knot fashioned through years of suffering, sin, despair, failure and anger, begins to unfurl
Tyrion understands his own broken desire to please God,
he sees his challenge to God as an acting out,
an expression of his hurt and frustration, feeling that he had been forgotten and neglected by Him, when all He wanted was His love
God’s telling Tyrion that he will choose A, is not only a prediction but a command to Tyrion of what he must do
peace envelops Tyrion; he is free, free to demonstrate his love for God
He chooses A
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top