Double trouble!

[Linusthe2nd]

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 haven’t noticed the CCC doesn’t used the word " Omniscient, " neither does it use the term " counter factual. " Nor does it use the term " possible. " Perhaps I missunderstood what you two were talking about. When Thomists speak of God’s Omniscience, they say that God knows all actual and possible beings. I just assume " possible beings, " means beings which may never exist or counter factuals.

For example. God knows all the possible universes which he has not and will never create. I would say that these possible universes you and Tyrion would call " counter factuals." Am I wrong?

Linus2nd

 

[Tyrion]

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.

Nonsense, my friend. Whatever the time traveler says is not binding on me. I can follow the prediction, or I can go against it. A “revealed” future is still the future, and NOT the past.

 

[Tyrion]

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…

Oh, but it is very serious. It means that God’s assumed knowledge of the “future” (or any other counterfactuals) is not absolute, it is contingent upon NOT revealing that future to me. And that is contradicted by the catholic teaching that God totally, completely “absolute”, there can be nothing contingent about it.

 

[davidv]

Nonsense, my friend. Whatever the time traveler says is not binding on me. I can follow the prediction, or I can go against it. A “revealed” future is still the future, and NOT the past.

If the time traveler observed the future, how can their report of it to you be a prediction? How is it not a know fact?

 

[Paddy_Walker]

Nonsense, my friend. Whatever the time traveler says is not binding on me. I can follow the prediction, or I can go against it. A “revealed” future is still the future, and NOT the past.

it is the past, for the time traveller. and so, like your past, it cannot be undone.

 

[Eleve]

Oh, but it is very serious. It means that God’s assumed knowledge of the “future” (or any other counterfactuals) is not absolute, it is contingent upon NOT revealing that future to me. And that is contradicted by the catholic teaching that God totally, completely “absolute”, there can be nothing contingent about it.

This is a nonsensical way of talking about counterfactuals and contingency, as if what happens under a given counterfactual hypothesis is contingent on what actually happens. To the contrary: God knows what will happen if he reveals the future to me, and he knows what will happen if he does not. If he tells me that I’m going to do some particular thing, he makes one of those particular counterfactuals the actual state of affairs. It’s not that the facts under those counterfactuals are contingent on what actually happens; it’s that one of those counterfactuals becomes actual when something actually happens.

You might as well say that God’s knowledge that the Moon is gray is “contingent” on whether he paints it red. Even worse, I don’t see why your argument wouldn’t also allow you to say that God’s knowledge is “contingent” on whether a human paints the moon red: if we do so then God knows one thing, and if we don’t do so he knows a different thing. Obviously, nobody who has believed in omniscience has ever thought that it rules out this kind of contingency.

Besides, you haven’t really answered my objection at all. I said that “All this shows is that God cannot reveal to you the outcome of his prediction and still have it come out correct.” Sure, if you think that God makes inaccurate predictions then that is a problem. But I never said that God has to make inaccurate predictions. I said he has to make inaccurate predictions or he has to refrain from telling crafty people what he predicts they will do in the future. That looks consistent with everything I’ve seen. It’s not like God has ever come to me and said “You will wear a red shirt today” and let me prove him wrong.

 

[Tyrion]

it is the past, for the time traveller. and so, like your past, it cannot be undone.

Let’s reverse that: “It is the future for me, so it is the future for the time traveler, too”, so I can change it. As soon as the time traveler returns, the future will be malleable again. Of course the problem would be the “return” with the extra information, since that would allow me to invoke the grandfather paradox - which is exactly what I am talking about.

A short summary is due.

We have some vague “vision” of the future, based upon what we know about the present. Our information is necessarily incomplete. Whatever we do, will influence the future to some extent. Now, if we would get ANY EXTRA information about the ramifications of our actions (no need for God or some time traveler), we could USE that extra information, and modify our action - before it happens.

Suppose the astronomers would predict a meteor strike which will demolish our house. We could take that information, and move away, whereby preventing our death. There is no need for some fancy “time traveler” to make the prediction, or show how one’s “foreknowledge” of the future can be used to invalidate that “foreknowledge”.

I am really surprised that some people still fight this simple reasoning.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

Let’s reverse that: “It is the future for me, so it is the future for the time traveler, too”, so I can change it. As soon as the time traveler returns, the future will be malleable again. Of course the problem would be the “return” with the extra information, since that would allow me to invoke the grandfather paradox - which is exactly what I am talking about.

A short summary is due.

We have some vague “vision” of the future, based upon what we know about the present. Our information is necessarily incomplete. Whatever we do, will influence the future to some extent. Now, if we would get ANY EXTRA information about the ramifications of our actions (no need for God or some time traveler), we could USE that extra information, and modify our action - before it happens.

Suppose the astronomers would predict a meteor strike which will demolish our house. We could take that information, and move away, whereby preventing our death. There is no need for some fancy “time traveler” to make the prediction, or show how one’s “foreknowledge” of the future can be used to invalidate that “foreknowledge”.

I am really surprised that some people still fight this simple reasoning.

now view the meteor strike the right way around. the time traveller, who represents actual knowledge of a particular future, sees the meteor strike happen in the future. returns, and tells you. and you move out of your house and your house is destroyed.
the time traveller saw your house being destroyed by the meteor but did not see your death.

 

[Tyrion]

now view the meteor strike the right way around. the time traveller, who represents actual knowledge of a particular future, sees the meteor strike happen in the future. returns, and tells you. and you move out of your house and your house is destroyed.
the time traveller saw your house being destroyed by the meteor but did not see your death.

No. IF I am suicidal (OR simply do not believe him), I will NOT move out of the house, IF he reports that I actually moved out. IF he reports that I did not move out, then I will move out. Is it possible that you still do not understand?

 

[Tyrion]

It’s not like God has ever come to me and said “You will wear a red shirt today” and let me prove him wrong.

That is exactly the scenario.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

No. IF I am suicidal (OR simply do not believe him), I will NOT move out of the house, IF he reports that I actually moved out. IF he reports that I did not move out, then I will move out. Is it possible that you still do not understand?

whatever you decide to do, that is what he will report. i think you are getting a bit confused with the fact that you are free and you do what you want to do and that is your future by-and-large. its akin to saying that you cannot fool yourself, you will always know what you are going to do when you decide to do it. so the time traveller also always knows what will happen in the future in an absolute sense because he is you when you have decided a course and you simply cannot fool yourself, its impossible.

 

[Aloysium]

in this long thread i seem to have learned two things

1. there is no omniscience in the natural order . I was not clear about this, whether all creation existed in itself within an eternal moment. So there is no possibility of time travel or other such sci-fi fantasies. Omniscience is an attribute of God.
2. if God tells you to choose A and you continue to choose B, so be it. In doing so one excludes God from his life.

 

[Eleve]

That is exactly the scenario.

My point is that the scenario may be impossible. You show that if God says “You will wear a red shirt today,” you can make his statement come out false. If that means God would have to lie, then all you’ve shown is that God will not - cannot - ever tell you about your future. This is not a problem with omniscience, since it doesn’t mean God can’t know the information he isn’t sharing with you. And it’s not a problem with omnipotence, since omnipotence does not extend to logically incoherent “actions.”

Alternatively, since a lie is a falsehood with the intention to deceive, one could argue that it wouldn’t be a lie for God to say “You will wear a red shirt today.” Obviously if God told you that you’ll wear a red shirt, you won’t be deceived, since you know that you’re just going to do whatever you want.

A third option is to override your free will. Would it be wrong for God to do so? If so, it seems to me all you’ve demonstrated is that God can’t take a particular action because it would be wrong. We already knew that, and no serious philosopher should think it’s an obstacle to omnipotence.

 

[Love4All]

If the time traveler observed the future, how can their report of it to you be a prediction? How is it not a know fact?

Consider Jonah’s prophecy to the Ninevites: “Forty days more and Nineveh will be destroyed.” If Jonah were a time traveler, it seems he would have obtained his knowledge of Niniveh’s impending doom as one possible future, specifically the future for them were they to continue obstinately on their then-present course. The Ninevites didn’t “change the future” — they changed the present, and it resulted in a better future.

 

[Love4All]

This thread is really silly. Tyrion is never going to accept the following, non-contradictory facts:

1. God can predict Tyrion’s future free will decision to Tyrion’s face.
2. Tyrion’s future free will decision will turn out exactly as God predicts.

The question is not whether Tyrion can successfully demonstrate God’s impotence, the question is whether Tyrion can successfully predict his own future. He cannot, because he is a mere man.

 

[Love4All]

I said that “All this shows is that God cannot reveal to you the outcome of his prediction and still have it come out correct.” Sure, if you think that God makes inaccurate predictions then that is a problem. But I never said that God has to make inaccurate predictions. I said he has to make inaccurate predictions or he has to refrain from telling crafty people what he predicts they will do in the future. That looks consistent with everything I’ve seen. It’s not like God has ever come to me and said “You will wear a red shirt today” and let me prove him wrong.

It is simply not the case that God has to do what you seem to think He has to do. God can do anything. You say, ‘It’s not like God has ever come to me and said “You will wear a red shirt today” and let me prove him wrong.’

Would you also assert that it’s not like God has ever come to Saint Peter and told him, “before the cock crows this morning, you will deny Me three times?”

God in fact predicted Saint Peter’s future free will decision to his face. Saint Peter in fact objected that he could, essentially, prove God wrong. God, in fact, was right.

If God predicts that Tyrion will freely choose a red shirt, then Tyrion, despite his present intention, will in fact, when the time comes for the choosing, choose the red shirt.

See this post for one possible scenario that God could bring about:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10733084&postcount=526

 

[Love4All]

My point is that the scenario may be impossible. You show that if God says “You will wear a red shirt today,” you can make his statement come out false. If that means God would have to lie, then all you’ve shown is that God will not - cannot - ever tell you about your future. This is not a problem with omniscience, since it doesn’t mean God can’t know the information he isn’t sharing with you. And it’s not a problem with omnipotence, since omnipotence does not extend to logically incoherent “actions.”

Except that, there is nothing logically incoherent about it.

Alternatively, since a lie is a falsehood with the intention to deceive, one could argue that it wouldn’t be a lie for God to say “You will wear a red shirt today.” Obviously if God told you that you’ll wear a red shirt, you won’t be deceived, since you know that you’re just going to do whatever you want.

A third option is to override your free will. Would it be wrong for God to do so? If so, it seems to me all you’ve demonstrated is that God can’t take a particular action because it would be wrong. We already knew that, and no serious philosopher should think it’s an obstacle to omnipotence.

1. The scenario is logically self-consistent.
2. God cannot lie.
3. God respects free will and never violates it.

God can predict Tyrion’s future free will action, to his face, correctly. That is the simplicity of it.

 

[Tyrion]

whatever you decide to do, that is what he will report.

You still don’t get it. I only make the decision AFTER I heard the report. The point is that there is no such thing as a “fixed future”. The future is contingent upon our decisions. The “time traveler” can only report one possible future.

It is identical to the concept of the probability wave collapse in the famous experiment of Schrödinger’s cat. The cat is neither dead or alive UNTIL the experimenter “peeks” into the box. The future does not exist as a fixed entity, until it arrives.

Just like it is logically impossible to modify the past (grandfather paradox), it is impossible to report about the future - because the future does not exist.

 

[Aloysium]

You still don’t get it. I only make the decision AFTER I heard the report. The point is that there is no such thing as a “fixed future”. The future is contingent upon our decisions. The “time traveler” can only report one possible future.

It is identical to the concept of the probability wave collapse in the famous experiment of Schrödinger’s cat. The cat is neither dead or alive UNTIL the experimenter “peeks” into the box. The future does not exist as a fixed entity, until it arrives.

Just like it is logically impossible to modify the past (grandfather paradox), it is impossible to report about the future - because the future does not exist.

All you have ever proven is that we do not know the future. For us, as beings in time, we cannot with certainty say even what we will do. As you say “the future does not exist”, but this is for us in any moment.

This state of affairs exists as an aspect of our free will. We, albeit in a limited way, create our future. In order to have free will, one’s past is done and the future awaits our choices. We are free to choose, but God knows our choices.

Each creative moment exists as part of God’s all-encompassing eternal moment. Your now, my now, what we are creating, bringing into being, exists through God’s act of being, which brings all creation into existence. There is One Source for all, and as such, He knows all, where He sits beyond/outside of/within all/transcending time.

We are finite spiritual souls and, as such, can be thought of as frames of reference. We develop particular relationships with the world in which we participate. As frames of reference, the understanding has to do with this relationship and thus includes both us and that aspect of the world which we are attempting to know.This view that everything is centred around oneself, be it space or time is built into this reality of how we rationally know our world. The Theory of Relativity while explaining the nature of space time has this fact of our rational spirit built into it, we can only measure events based on an imagined observer. Basically, time does not “revolve” around us, the entire universe is not coming into existence from our personal moments. All creation emanates from God, through His word. He knows all.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

You still don’t get it. I only make the decision AFTER I heard the report. The point is that there is no such thing as a “fixed future”. The future is contingent upon our decisions. The “time traveler” can only report one possible future.

It is identical to the concept of the probability wave collapse in the famous experiment of Schrödinger’s cat. The cat is neither dead or alive UNTIL the experimenter “peeks” into the box. The future does not exist as a fixed entity, until it arrives.

Just like it is logically impossible to modify the past (grandfather paradox), it is impossible to report about the future - because the future does not exist.

heres a picture of it;

i decide to bake a cake tomorrow ------> time traveller sees -------> i have baked the cake today

i decide to fool the time traveller;

i decide to bake a cake tomorrow [not] -------> time traveller sees ------> i have baked the cake [not]