Double trouble!

[Aloysium]

This thread has proved to me, at least, that there can be no omniscience within the natural order and that it can belong only to God.

 

[Tyrion]

omniscience means all-knowing.

So you assert that an omniscient being “knows” an object or event which never happened and will never happen?

 

[Paddy_Walker]

So you assert that an omniscient being “knows” an object or event which never happened and will never happen?

send your friend, the time-traveller, into the future again to search to the ends of time for a Gobbledegook, he returns and tells you it just does not exist. so now you know that that creature, the Gobbledegook, never existed. whats so difficult about that.

 

[PetrusRomanus]

Let’s see two alleged attributes of God: omnipotence and omniscience. The current question is: “Can God prove his omniscience?”. In other words, is it within God’s “omnipotence” to really prove that he knows what free agents will do sometime in the future? (It is future only for us…) Of course God may simply say that he knows what I will do at any time in the future. But I am a “nasty” skeptic, and will ask if he can prove what he says?

As such I offer the following experiment. I will select a few dice, and will toss them sometime in the future. Can God predict and reveal the result? How many dice will I select? With which hand am I going to do the toss? When will I do the toss? Of course, as soon as I hear the prediction, I will do something else - as long as God does not “tinker” with my free will. If God says that I will select 3 dice, then I will select 1, or 2, or 4, etc… anything but 3. If he says that I will make the toss with my right hand… then I will do it with my left hand. If he says that I will make the toss within the next 5 minutes… then I will wait 6 minutes. Since I will act only when I heard the prediction, I am in the driver’s seat.

Now, of course this is all contingent upon God “playing” the game. If he refuses to participate, then he admits that he cannot “prove” his so-called and assumed “omniscience”. And that refutes God’s omnipotence. He is unable to prove such a simple assertion. Moreover, even if one accepts God’s word without proof, then it is obvious that God’s omniscience is contingent upon NOT revealing his knowledge. (Which makes God contingent.)

Either God’s omnipotence or omniscience or both are problematic. Can anyone refute this logic?

I think God knows all possible outcomes.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Since the church does not endorse either of them, this is not a problem.

During such a long thread the focus necessarily changes, from the particular to the general. There cannot be “several, mutually contradictory” definitions of omniscience. For quite a while now, the emphasis has moved unto the general problem: “just what does the term omniscience” mean? And that question definitely includes the presented problem, namely “can omniscience include knowing an object or event, which has never happened, does not exist and will never exist”. The catholic stance here also says “yes”, albeit implicitly, when it say that “God knows all the counterfactuals”. I do not question that cathoilcs actually agree with it, or not. I met a few who understood that this assertion is nonsensical. But people in this thread disagree. The conclusion is that in their view the concept of knowledge is an incomprehensible gobbledegook, and as such,.the conversation is futile.

Yes, God knows all possible and actual beings, acts, thoughts, even those which will never be actual. Why should it surprise you that not all Catholics know or agree with the teaching of their own faith? All you need to know is what the Church teaches. Given how the Church understands who God is, it is perfectly reasonable. The teaching is not based on reason, it is based on Divine Revelation, and God does not lie. " …before you were formed in the womb I knew you…"

Psalm 139
[For the choirmaster Of David Psalm] Yahweh, you examine me and know me,

2 you know when I sit, when I rise, you understand my thoughts from afar.

3 You watch when I walk or lie down, you know every detail of my conduct.

4 A word is not yet on my tongue before you, Yahweh, know all about it.

5 You fence me in, behind and in front, you have laid your hand upon me.

6 Such amazing knowledge is beyond me, a height to which I cannot attain.

7 Where shall I go to escape your spirit? Where shall I flee from your presence?

8 If I scale the heavens you are there, if I lie flat in Sheol, there you are.

If I speed away on the wings of the dawn, if I dwell beyond the ocean,

10 even there your hand will be guiding me, your right hand holding me fast.

11 I will say, ‘Let the darkness cover me, and the night wrap itself around me,’

12 even darkness to you is not dark, and night is as clear as the day.

13 You created my inmost self, knit me together in my mother’s womb.

14 For so many marvels I thank you; a wonder am I, and all your works are wonders. You knew me through and through,

15 my being held no secrets from you, when I was being formed in secret, textured in the depths of the earth.

16 Your eyes could see my embryo. In your book all my days were inscribed, every one that was fixed is there.

17 How hard for me to grasp your thoughts, how many, God, there are!

18 If I count them, they are more than the grains of sand; if I come to an end, I am still with you.

Linus2nd

 

[Tyrion]

send your friend, the time-traveller, into the future again to search to the ends of time for a Gobbledegook, he returns and tells you it just does not exist. so now you know that that creature, the Gobbledegook, never existed. whats so difficult about that.

Very well!

Now you should amend your previous assertion, which said: “omniscience means all-knowing.” and now you say that even an omniscient being cannot “know” what never happened, and will never happen. I would suggest the amendment to say: “omniscience means to know everything that can be known”.

Of course, now you ran into two difficulties. One is that “what can be known” is undefined. How can we find out, just what is that “can be known”? The other problem is (which is not a problem for me!) is that now you - correctly - contradict the teaching of the church’s dogma, which says that God knows “all the counterfactuals”. After all what never existed, and will never exist - COULD have existed or COULD exist in the future.

But I agree with you here. To say that “omniscience” includes the knowledge of something that never happened is total nonsense.

---

Now, just for the fun of it, I will have to argue with your time traveler setup. As you said, I can ask a question from the time traveler, who will go into the future, get the answer to my question, and then it will “prove” omniscience. Even if time traveling WOULD be possible, it would not solve the paradox I am presenting. I would ask who are the winners of the next Powerball drawing, and what the numbers will be.

Mr. Time Traveler goes and tells me the result - the numbers will be: … and the winners will be … Now there are several possibilities. 1) He reports that there will be no winners. 2) He reports that there will be one winner - namely my poor self. 3) He reports that there will be some winners, but I am not included among them. and finally 4) he reports several winners, myself included. You need to guess what I WILL do, with this information. No matter what he reports, I can act in a contrarian fashion. I can invalidate his report. If he says that I am not among the winners, I will play the numbers he brought back, and be among the winners. If he reports that I AM among the winners, I can refrain from buying that ticket, and as such I will not be among the winners.

Since I have the final say after I received the information about the “future”, I can always act in a manner which will invalidate the result that Mr. Time Traveler brings back. It is a good thing to be in the driver seat, wouldn’t you say?

 

[Gorgias]

you - correctly - contradict the teaching of the church’s dogma, which says that God knows “all the counterfactuals”.

Actually, this isn’t Church dogma. A variety of philosophers and theologians have tackled the question, but the statement you made is not part of the deposit of the faith; that is, it is not dogma. If you have a citation to prove otherwise, please provide it.

Since I have the final say after I received the information about the “future”, I can always act in a manner which will invalidate the result that Mr. Time Traveler brings back. It is a good thing to be in the driver seat, wouldn’t you say?

Still beating that dead horse, eh?

(By the way – the ‘time traveler’ construction does a pretty poor job of things: it doesn’t demonstrate omniscience, but rather, simple access to knowledge of the ‘future’. This construction doesn’t re-create the notion of omniscience, but simulates some of its effects.)

 

[Love4All]

I wrote…

Quote:
E w( (<>T(A) /\ <>G(A)) /\ (<>T(B) /\ <>G(A) ).
There exists a possible world wherein (possibly Tyrion chooses A and possibly God predicts A possibly Tyrion chooses B and possibly God predicts A)

But I should have written.

E w( (<>T(A) /\ G(A)) /\ (<>T(B) /\ G(A))
Now while from we know that although the following is not actually logically equivalent it must necessarily be true given the above.

E w( <>(T(A) /\ G(A)) /\ <>(T(B) /\ G(A)))
And then we have run into our contradiction with

~<>(T(B) /\ G(A)).

Apologies for taking two attempts to get there. But better late than never I guess.

Sorry, no. You made the same error as before.

E w( (<>T(A) /\ G(A)) /\ (<>T(B) /\ G(A))

is valid.

E w( <>(T(A) /\ G(A)) /\ <>(T(B) /\ G(A)))

is not. And the illegal operation you performed is the same as before. The conjunction of an actuality with a possibility does not imply the possibility of a conjunction of two actualities.

The statement, “<>T(B) /\ G(A)” reads, "It is the case that both ‘Tyrion can choose B’ AND ‘God has predicted A.’ " This statement is true. You cannot legitimately transform that to, “<>(T(B) /\ G(A))” which reads, "It is possible that both ‘Tyrion does choose B’ AND ‘God has predicted A.’ " The second statement is false, and there is no legitmate logical way to make the first into the second.

I have bolded the key words to help you more easily to perceive your error.

 

[Love4All]

Actually, this isn’t Church dogma. A variety of philosophers and theologians have tackled the question, but the statement you made is not part of the deposit of the faith; that is, it is not dogma. If you have a citation to prove otherwise, please provide it.

Still beating that dead horse, eh?

(By the way – the ‘time traveler’ construction does a pretty poor job of things: it doesn’t demonstrate omniscience, but rather, simple access to knowledge of the ‘future’. This construction doesn’t re-create the notion of omniscience, but simulates some of its effects.)

Whether it has been pronounced as Dogma or not — God knows all counterfactuals. Without contradiction.

 

[CandideWest]

Sorry, no. You made the same error as before.

E w( (<>T(A) /\ G(A)) /\ (<>T(B) /\ G(A))

is valid.

E w( <>(T(A) /\ G(A)) /\ <>(T(B) /\ G(A)))

is not. And the illegal operation you performed is the same as before. The conjunction of an actuality with a possibility does not imply the possibility of a conjunction of two actualities.

The statement, “<>T(B) /\ G(A)” reads, "It is the case that both ‘Tyrion can choose B’ AND ‘God has predicted A.’ " This statement is true. You cannot legitimately transform that to, “<>(T(B) /\ G(A))” which reads, "It is possible that both ‘Tyrion does choose B’ AND ‘God has predicted A.’ " The second statement is false, and there is no legitmate logical way to make the first into the second.

I have bolded the key words to help you more easily to perceive your error.

Not quite, the statement

“(<>T(B) /\ G(A))”

Reads - "(it is possible that Tyrion chooses B AND God predicted A).

While

“<>(T(B) /\ G(A))”

Reads - it is possible that (Tyrion chooses B AND God predicted A).

You previously correctly identified that going from

(<>X /\ <>Y)

to

<>(X /\ Y).

Was not correct as it is possible for X and Y to be mutually exclusive, however if X and Y are mutually exclusive then the following CANNOT be true (it is not possible)

(<>X /\ Y)

For this statement to be possible the following must be possible too.

<>(X /\ Y)

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Actually, this isn’t Church dogma. A variety of philosophers and theologians have tackled the question, but the statement you made is not part of the deposit of the faith; that is, it is not dogma. If you have a citation to prove otherwise, please provide it.

God’s Omniscience is De Fide

" The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church believes and acknowledges that there is one true and living God, creator and lord of heaven and earth, almighty, eternal, immeasurable, incomprehensible, infinite in will, understanding and every perfection. " ( Vatican 1)

" infinite in…understanding and every perfectiion " means that God knows all actual and possible things " If this were not so, he would be imperfect and could not be God. Don’t sacrafice the teaching of the Church, just because you think your opponent is making " points. "

Linus2nd

 

[Gorgias]

God’s Omniscience is De Fide

This is true. Yet, ‘omniscience’ wasn’t the question; ‘counterfactuals’ was…

"infinite in…understanding and every perfectiion " means that God knows all actual and possible things

Can you show where “infinite in understanding and every perfection” includes counterfactuals, from a source that is making a dogmatic pronouncement? You assert what it means, without providing a reference or citation.

Thanks!

 

[Love4All]

This is true. Yet, ‘omniscience’ wasn’t the question; ‘counterfactuals’ was…

Can you show where “infinite in understanding and every perfection” includes counterfactuals, from a source that is making a dogmatic pronouncement? You assert what it means, without providing a reference or citation.

Thanks!

Knowledge of counterfactuals is knowledge, and thus the Omniscient One possesses it. Otherwise, Jesus would have had no idea what “would have happened” in Tyre and Sidon, had they witnessed the miracles that Judea did.

 

[Aloysium]

This is true. Yet, ‘omniscience’ wasn’t the question; ‘counterfactuals’ was…

Can you show where “infinite in understanding and every perfection” includes counterfactuals, from a source that is making a dogmatic pronouncement? You assert what it means, without providing a reference or citation.

Thanks!

if you mean: expressing what has not happened but could, would, or might under differing conditions

Matt 11:21 'Alas for you, Chorazin! Alas for you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

L4A, you beat me to it

 

[Love4All]

Not quite, the statement

“(<>T(B) /\ G(A))”

Reads - "(it is possible that Tyrion chooses B AND God predicted A).

Your use of parentheses here is superfluous and confusingly ambiguous. Putting parentheses around the entire statement doesn’t clarify anything.

It seems you wish to say that,

“It is possible that (Tyrion chooses B AND God predicted A.)”

— which is plainly contradictory and false. Really what the symbols are conveying is,

“(It is possible that Tyrion chooses B) AND (God predicted A.)”

— which is true. It seems you’d like to confound possibility with actuality, but really they are distinct.

While

“<>(T(B) /\ G(A))”

Reads - it is possible that (Tyrion chooses B AND God predicted A).

See — that is what I said you thought. I didn’t refer to this when I assessed it. But it’s wrong.

You previously correctly identified that going from

(<>X /\ <>Y)

to

<>(X /\ Y).

Was not correct as it is possible for X and Y to be mutually exclusive, however if X and Y are mutually exclusive then the following CANNOT be true (it is not possible)

(<>X /\ Y)

For this statement to be possible the following must be possible too.

<>(X /\ Y)

No. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. Possibility is not actuality. Given that X and Y are mutually exclusive, the following holds:

~<>(X /\ Y).

However, the following are all perfectly OK:

(<>X /\ Y)
(X /\ <>Y)
(<>X /\ <>Y).

As long as we do not assert the contradiction, X /\ Y, we’re OK. And mutually exclusive possibilities can co-exist, just not mutually exclusive actualities.

 

[Tyrion]

Actually, this isn’t Church dogma. A variety of philosophers and theologians have tackled the question, but the statement you made is not part of the deposit of the faith; that is, it is not dogma. If you have a citation to prove otherwise, please provide it.

Knowing counterfactuals is part of the “omniscience”. If “omniscience” entails the knowledge of something which never happened, nor will ever happen, then it is just another ludicrous concept.

Still beating that dead horse, eh?

That horse has already run three times around the racetrack, while the opposition never managed to take even one step on the turf. No one could (obviously) make a rational objection to: “how could “omniscience” exist, when the future is contingent upon the free decision of someone who has been given “revelation” about what **will **(?) happen”.

(By the way – the ‘time traveler’ construction does a pretty poor job of things: it doesn’t demonstrate omniscience, but rather, simple access to knowledge of the ‘future’. This construction doesn’t re-create the notion of omniscience, but simulates some of its effects.)

“Knowing the future” would be part of the omniscience, too.

 

[Love4All]

if you mean: expressing what has not happened but could, would, or might under differing conditions

Matt 11:21 'Alas for you, Chorazin! Alas for you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

L4A, you beat me to it

 

[Love4All]

No one could (obviously) make a rational objection to: “how could “omniscience” exist, when the future is contingent upon the free decision of someone who has been given “revelation” about what **will **(?) happen”.

“How could ‘omniscience’ exist, when the future is contingent upon the free decision of someone who has been given ‘revelation’ about what **will **(?) happen”.

It seems, knowing what will happen, you’d base your free will decision on that.

It seems the question you’d rather ask is, “what will happen to someone who attempts to contradict reality?”

What will be, will be. Your decision is part of that. This ain’t rocket science.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

Very well!

Now you should amend your previous assertion, which said: “omniscience means all-knowing.” and now you say that even an omniscient being cannot “know” what never happened, and will never happen. I would suggest the amendment to say: “omniscience means to know everything that can be known”.

Of course, now you ran into two difficulties. One is that “what can be known” is undefined. How can we find out, just what is that “can be known”? The other problem is (which is not a problem for me!) is that now you - correctly - contradict the teaching of the church’s dogma, which says that God knows “all the counterfactuals”. After all what never existed, and will never exist - COULD have existed or COULD exist in the future.

But I agree with you here. To say that “omniscience” includes the knowledge of something that never happened is total nonsense.

everything that could exist would exist because of him creating it. if it never exists there is nothing to know. if it does not yet exist he knows it. and everything it could do is possible through him.

---

Now, just for the fun of it, I will have to argue with your time traveler setup. As you said, I can ask a question from the time traveler, who will go into the future, get the answer to my question, and then it will “prove” omniscience. Even if time traveling WOULD be possible, it would not solve the paradox I am presenting. I would ask who are the winners of the next Powerball drawing, and what the numbers will be.

Mr. Time Traveler goes and tells me the result - the numbers will be: … and the winners will be … Now there are several possibilities. 1) He reports that there will be no winners. 2) He reports that there will be one winner - namely my poor self. 3) He reports that there will be some winners, but I am not included among them. and finally 4) he reports several winners, myself included. You need to guess what I WILL do, with this information. No matter what he reports, I can act in a contrarian fashion. I can invalidate his report. If he says that I am not among the winners, I will play the numbers he brought back, and be among the winners. If he reports that I AM among the winners, I can refrain from buying that ticket, and as such I will not be among the winners.

Since I have the final say after I received the information about the “future”, I can always act in a manner which will invalidate the result that Mr. Time Traveler brings back. It is a good thing to be in the driver seat, wouldn’t you say?

thats just the thing. the future has already happened for you if the time traveller tells you what you did. so no, you can’t change what happened once it has happened.

 

[Eleve]

As such I offer the following experiment. I will select a few dice, and will toss them sometime in the future. Can God predict and reveal the result? How many dice will I select? With which hand am I going to do the toss? When will I do the toss? Of course, as soon as I hear the prediction, I will do something else - as long as God does not “tinker” with my free will. If God says that I will select 3 dice, then I will select 1, or 2, or 4, etc… anything but 3. If he says that I will make the toss with my right hand… then I will do it with my left hand. If he says that I will make the toss within the next 5 minutes… then I will wait 6 minutes. Since I will act only when I heard the prediction, I am in the driver’s seat.

Now, of course this is all contingent upon God “playing” the game. If he refuses to participate, then he admits that he cannot “prove” his so-called and assumed “omniscience”. And that refutes God’s omnipotence. He is unable to prove such a simple assertion. Moreover, even if one accepts God’s word without proof, then it is obvious that God’s omniscience is contingent upon NOT revealing his knowledge. (Which makes God contingent.)

Either God’s omnipotence or omniscience or both are problematic. Can anyone refute this logic?

All this shows is that God cannot reveal to you the outcome of his prediction and still have it come out correct (without also manipulating your will, at least). That doesn’t strike me as a problem at all, any more than it would be a problem to say that God can’t write his name on a piece of paper without leaving a mark on the paper. Or how about this one: God can’t build a Turing machine which decides the halting problem for other Turing machines. This is simply because such a machine is known to be mathematically impossible; any possible machine that you could build (call it M) can be uniformly transformed into a machine (call it Q) such that M fails to decide the halting problem for Q. The fact that you can transform God’s revealed predictions into states that conflict with those predictions is really just a way of dressing up this same, well-known restriction of omnipotence to metaphysically coherent states of affairs.