Logical absurdity and self-contradiction in the concept of God

[jonathan_hili]

Now you are “playing” with the multiple meanings of “contingent”. The current meaning of “contingent” has nothing to do with different possible worlds. It has everything to do with the simple concept of “a child’s existence is contingent upon the existence of the parents”. In other words, if the parents were not there… the child would not be there either. Now, I can understand your reluctance of accepting this simple concept. After all, IF you would accept it, it would throw a monkey-wrench into the “spokes” of the catholic concept of God. As I said before, God may very well exist, but the (christian / catholic) concept of the attributes of God would have to be re-evaluated. And to criticize these fundamental catholic concepts is to advocate “heresy”, which I can do, but you cannot. The price is too high for you. So, let’s drop it.

Haha it almost sounds like your last comments here are a subtle insult, but I wouldn’t think you that low.

Even if I grant your use of contingency, your proposition still does not follow, namely, that because God’s knowledge is contingent on our actions and thoughts, we cause God’s knowledge. I think this is problematic simply because knowledge does not occur like this; knowledge is not caused in the same way as objects are caused to be, say, a child caused to be by his parents. Knowledge is, in fact, not a caused object at all but (fundamentally) justified true belief. Since God will always have justified true beliefs regarding my thoughts and actions, He will know necessarily from eternity and unchangingly my thoughts and actions. Consequently, I cannot cause (at least, in terms of causal relations) knowledge in God.

 

[Tyrion]

Even if I grant your use of contingency, your proposition still does not follow, namely, that because God’s knowledge is contingent on our actions and thoughts, we cause God’s knowledge.

This has already been covered before. We have a perfect correspondence between God’s knowledge and our action. Either our acts cause God’s knowledge, or God’s knowledge causes our acts, or the 100% accurate equivalence between out acts and God’s knowledge is simply an incredible and colossal coincidence, or both God’s knowledge and our actions have been caused by some external agency. There is no fifth option. Pick your choice.

I think this is problematic simply because knowledge does not occur like this; knowledge is not caused in the same way as objects are caused to be, say, a child caused to be by his parents. Knowledge is, in fact, not a caused object at all but (fundamentally) justified true belief. Since God will always have justified true beliefs regarding my thoughts and actions, He will know necessarily from eternity and unchangingly my thoughts and actions. Consequently, I cannot cause (at least, in terms of causal relations) knowledge in God.

Knowledge is accurate information. In other words it is an abstract construct between an object (or event) and its mental equivalence.

 

[jonathan_hili]

This has already been covered before. We have a perfect correspondence between God’s knowledge and our action. Either our acts cause God’s knowledge, or God’s knowledge causes our acts, or the 100% accurate equivalence between out acts and God’s knowledge is simply an incredible and colossal coincidence, or both God’s knowledge and our actions have been caused by some external agency. There is no fifth option. Pick your choice.

Sure, but you are equivocating on the term “causation”. Knowledge isn’t caused by any agent. Our acts do not cause God’s knowledge because knowledge isn’t caused. As you say, it is accurate information. How can accurate information be caused by one agent to be affected in another?

God knows our actions and thoughts eternally. Whether we are the cause of them or not, again, matters little with regards to contingency because God would know them from eternity. Therefore, God is not mutable with regards to His knowledge. This seems blatantly obvious, I really don’t know what else to say.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The Truth of the Catholic Faith is not dependent on its acceptance by non-believers. There are some minds which will never accept this truth because they have intentionally closed their minds to this thruth, either for emotional, subjective reasons or because of some undefined reason unrelated to truth. Sophism is not a new phenomena, it existed formally in the days of Socates, Plato, and Aristotle and was despised by them as being beneath contempt.

Linus2nd

 

[jonathan_hili]

The Truth of the Catholic Faith is not dependent on its acceptance by non-believers. There are some minds which will never accept this truth because they have intentionally closed their minds to this thruth, either for emotional, subjective reasons or because of some undefined reason unrelated to truth. Sophism is not a new phenomena, it existed formally in the days of Socates, Plato, and Aristotle and was despised by them as being beneath contempt.

Linus2nd

That’s true, Linus, but in this case I think it’s a misunderstanding. To say that our free choices and actions cause God’s knowledge and therefore, due to our freedom, make God (through His knowledge) mutable, is only true if God knows after the fact. But God knows from eternity and timelessly, and so even if we changed our minds or tried to trick God through our thoughts and actions, God would have already known this anyway. I really don’t see a problem here.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

That’s true, Linus, but in this case I think it’s a misunderstanding. To say that our free choices and actions cause God’s knowledge and therefore, due to our freedom, make God (through His knowledge) mutable, is only true if God knows after the fact. But God knows from eternity and timelessly, and so even if we changed our minds or tried to trick God through our thoughts and actions, God would have already known this anyway. I really don’t see a problem here.

There is no problem except in minds which prefer their private opinions over the reality of the case. Since God knows all our future acts before we have acted and has made allowances for them from all eternity, he acts freely. God’s actions are not dependent on acts as performed in time. His decisions are made eternally, before we act. Thus his plan is absolutely free and not dependent on anything. Linus2nd

 

[wittgenstein]

Does God know his future acts? And how does that effect his free will. If God knew what he would do, and did otherwise, would that mean that his prediction was inaccurate?

 

[Linux]

Does God know his future acts? And how does that effect his free will. If God knew what he would do, and did otherwise, would that mean that his prediction was inaccurate?

What god are you talking about?

 

[PRmerger]

Does God know his future acts? And how does that effect his free will. If God knew what he would do, and did otherwise, would that mean that his prediction was inaccurate?

There is no such thing as “future acts” for God. It is all in the Eternal Now for God.

 

[wittgenstein]

The future is certain? Then when does free will dance?
Actually, from an Einsteinium perspective that makes sense. Google,"Besso Einstein " for an interesting perspective.

 

[tdgesq]

The future is certain? Then when does free will dance?
Actually, from an Einsteinium perspective that makes sense. Google,"Besso Einstein " for an interesting perspective.

Einstein’s conception wouldn’t be acceptable to most Christians. Locus of causal control is the best candidate (although principle of alternate possibilities is making a comeback) for freedom. If the actor can choose without external influence or constraint, including from God, then such choices are free. This is true even if God can foresee the outcome. At least that’s the argument.