The impossibility of knowing the future?

[clarkgamble1]

If it were possible for something, human, machine, or otherwise to know the future, it could be written down and made available for all to read. There would most certainly be someone who then could act in a way as to make sure that the events forecast did not happen as was written down. The conclusion has to be then, that the future could never be known with certainty. How then can we say God knows the future?

 

[Rayne2Step]

Hope your days are well. I don’t know an answer to your question or even if anyone could answer that question to the point you agree with. Sometimes there are questions we just don’t know an answer for and that’s ok too, honest anyway. I could read a text book which explains how its possible I can type words over plastic and wire and you can read it anywhere in the world and it still wouldn’t make sense to me. Peace be with you

 

[Usagi]

Certainly there would be problems of free will and causality if the future were to be written down or otherwise made known to people who haven’t experienced it yet … but as long as that doesn’t happen (and God doesn’t seem intent on doing it), I don’t see how the mere possibility makes God’s future knowledge impossible.

 

[porthos11]

Because God does NOT know the future. The “future” to us is already present with God. So it is not about him writing something that someone here could circumvent. It cannot be circumvented because all moments in time are already present to him according to his immutable divine providence.

That providence includes both man’s free responses to everything that happens, and the fact that prophecies and predictions have indeed been written down. Those events are also all present to God, and he has accounted for those very actions.

Try as you might, there is no outsmarting the Unchanging, Infinite God.

 

[Lee1]

I knew someone would start this thread.

(And I just couldn’t prevent it.)

In all seriousness I once knew someone who did know the future, amazing, astounding and true.

Imagine then if a human being was capable of this how much more so God.

You’ll have to take my word for it, but consider, why would I lie.

 

[gregoryphealy]

There would most certainly be someone who then could act in a way as to make sure that the events forecast did not happen as was written down.

This assumes we have free will (which is an assumption we’d agree with given that this is a Catholic forum). But there are versions of this that imply that we don’t have free will and that we act in accord with yet uncovered and unrefined scientific laws/theories or what have you. Given ample time, enough data on the current state of the universe, and a strong enough supercomputer, we could map out the future, and (given that some set of equations guides the universe) nothing could deviate from that course.

Playing devil’s advocate…with respect to your proposition, if someone does act in a way that “disrupts” that timeline, then you could posit that the written “future” was incorrect and didn’t account for that disruption. So then it’d be back to the drawing boards.

However, if I go along with your proposition, I’d have to ask you (and actually, everyone on this forum who posits to have the truth with regards to God’s epistemic capacities), how do you know how God knows things?

 

[fisherman_carl]

The Bible proves that knowing the future is not impossible. Lots of fulfilled prophecy there. Google King Cyrus for instance.

 

[STT]

If it were possible for something, human, machine, or otherwise to know the future, it could be written down and made available for all to read. There would most certainly be someone who then could act in a way as to make sure that the events forecast did not happen as was written down. The conclusion has to be then, that the future could never be known with certainty. How then can we say God knows the future?

I completely agree with you.

 

[Gorgias]

clarkgamble1:

If it were possible for something, human, machine, or otherwise to know the future, it could be written down and made available for all to read. There would most certainly be someone who then could act in a way as to make sure that the events forecast did not happen as was written down. The conclusion has to be then, that the future could never be known with certainty. How then can we say God knows the future?

I completely agree with you.

Not surprising.

@clarkgamble1, what @porthos11 wrote is the answer, from the perspective of God’s omniscience. He doesn’t “learn” the “future”. All things that we perceive of as ‘past’, ‘present’, and ‘future’ are known immediately by God.

There were posters around here (including @STT, right, STT?) who kept trying to make the claim “but if God told us about a future event, we could then thwart His omniscience!”. They tended to ignore the response, “yeah, but He doesn’t, so that doesn’t happen.” Go figure.

 

[STT]

Not surprising.

@clarkgamble1, what @porthos11 wrote is the answer, from the perspective of God’s omniscience. He doesn’t “learn” the “future”. All things that we perceive of as ‘past’, ‘present’, and ‘future’ are known immediately by God.

There were posters around here (including @STT, right, STT?) who kept trying to make the claim “but if God told us about a future event, we could then thwart His omniscience!”. They tended to ignore the response, “yeah, but He doesn’t, so that doesn’t happen.” Go figure.

I am familiar with your argument: God doesn’t tell you the future!

 

[Annie]

Back in the olden days when I was young, a movie was on a long strip of film. I imagine God looking at the long strip of the finished movie of our history and knowing the future, because He is outside of time.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

If it were possible for something, human, machine, or otherwise to know the future, it could be written down and made available for all to read. There would most certainly be someone who then could act in a way as to make sure that the events forecast did not happen as was written down

You’ve just described the events at Fatima, but instead of action there was the inaction from several popes.

Knowing something about the future, however vague, does not necessarily set up a contradiction. It would only be the action taken that could set up the contradiction.

 

[Gorgias]

The usual “objection” that God is outside the time, and therefore from his perspective there is no past, present and future - and this is just nonsense. Even if you were outside of time - which is as nonsensical than being outside the universe

In the context of the framework of what you personally believe, perhaps it is ‘nonsense’. However, it is conceivable, if one doesn’t hold to your opinion that the only ‘reality’ is the universe. So, your answer merely boils down to “I disagree with you, and therefore, I disagree with you.”

But, if you’re willing to entertain the notion that God created the universe ex nihilo, then it logically follows that He is neither part of the universe nor bound by it. Therefore, the characteristics of the universe – not just physical extension but also temporal extension – are not characteristics to which God is subject. This means that God not only does not live “in the universe”, but also, that He does not “live” inside of our temporal framework.

You make another interesting claim: that, existing outside the framework of the universe, one is nevertheless still subject to the temporal framework of the universe. That claim is self-refuting, of course: it implies that, outside the temporal framework is nevertheless still subject to the temporal framework! It’s the same thing as saying “just because the movie The Titanic is playing in the movie theater, James Cameron – who is standing outside the theatre – doesn’t know what happens to Jack.” See how absurd your assertion is, once you think about it for a minute?

The writer of the script is “outside” the timeline of the play. Yet, due to the free will of the actors, he, the author, living outside the timeline of the play does not and cannot know the outcome, the final scene, until it actually happens.

Nice set up. However, the writer does not possess the attributes of God, and therefore, is subject to the temporal framework. Therefore, his knowledge is conditional on time. That’s why your thought experiment fails to be helpful: God is not subject to time, and therefore, is not conditional on it.

I mean… nice try. But, far too easily defeated. Try again?

 

[mythbuster1]

And people have proven themselves time and again to be fools. They are told exactly what bad things will happen if they go down a certain route and press forward with their plans anyway. It doesn’t matter how much people are warned if they refuse to believe the warnings. That is why, “If they would not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they would not listen even to a man come back from the dead.”

 

[Gorgias]

The starting point that God created the universe and that immediately implies the “action” and an action means a “before” and “after” - which is some kind of time. An action which brings along no change is not an action.

“An action means a ‘before’ or ‘after’” makes sense within the context of a temporal framework, but is meaningless in the context of the creation of the temporal framework itself.

If you’re claiming that there’s no change from “no universe exists” to “universe exists”, then your claim that you’re rational lacks credibility.

It is nonsensical to say that the “future” exists when God looks at it, and does not exist (yet) when we try to look at it.

Of course it isn’t nonsensical. The notion of ‘future’ only exists from our perspective, since we are contained within the temporal framework. Outside of that framework, the notion of ‘future’ does not exist.

If you build something, that has not existed before, your realm has changed, and that effects you too.

Except that God continues to be not a part of the universe.

Actually, the writer is not subject to the time within the play , and still cannot know the ending until it is played out.

That’s a nice try. However, it obfuscates what’s really in play: the writer is not omniscient, and has no ‘prior’ insight into the “time within the play”. God does, however, and that’s why your example fails to be illustrative.

The analogy works very well, even if you don’t like it.

Oh, I like the analogy. I just recognize its limitations, while you seem not to.

 

[Gorgias]

No. The words “before” and “after” IMPLY and CREATE the temporal framework.

LOL! You’re the one who claims that the only reality is physical reality… and now you’re trying to tell us that non-physical entities (i.e., the words ‘before’ and ‘after’) create the dimension of time?!?!?

Empty expressions like this do not count as rational arguments. The word universe means “everything there is”.

See … this is where you get yourself into trouble. You present a word, and define it yourself, and then expect us to be held to your definition.

Sorry… it doesn’t work like that. The universe is “everything physical that is.” Therefore, by definition, it doesn’t include the transcendental!

“ the fallacy of the stolen concept ”. Taking a word or expression, twisting it out of its epistemological environment, and start to use it without justification.

The word I think you’re looking for is “jargon.”

there is NO coherent definition of omniscience”,

you keep claiming this around here… in the face of definitions that are being given you! In a way, it’s kind of charming.

 

[Gorgias]

If only you would understand that the concepts and ideas are part of the whole reality, even though they are not physical.

Fine. Prove their existence – empirically – just as you ask us to prove God’s existence.

If you can, then you can’t argue that Christians are irrational for claiming God’s existence. If you can’t, then you can’t claim that “concepts and ideas are part of reality.” So… which of your assertions are you more willing to give up, eh?

As soon as you speak of 'action", you immediately agree that there is change, and therefore there is a before and after, and therefore there is a “time”.

Actually, a “coming into existence” event is a ‘change’, and it doesn’t have a ‘before’, per se (in the context of the creation of all physical existence). It’s a subtle concept, so I get it if you haven’t thought about it before…

Again, the definition is not MINE. It is the actual meaning of the word.

According to you. Others don’t define it that way. Unless you’re a solipsist, then you don’t get to make up all the definitions yourself.

But you are again welcome to present YOUR definition of omniscience.

I have. A couple of times. And, since it isn’t your definition, you’ve laughed it off as ‘nonsense.’ You realize how your credibility diminishes when you declare that you alone get to provide definitions, right?

 

[Gorgias]

It is amazing how nonsensical you are. Concepts do not have ontological existence, they are constructs of the mind. Of course the changes in the neural system can be detected and recorded, so they constitute an empirical evidence

And, just as soon as you can fully map “changes in the neural system” to “states of the mind”, then you can make that claim. Until then, you cannot. At least, not rationally.

And before someone was able to “think” of the sentence: “coming into existence” this proposition simply did not exist

Right. And, before someone was able to “think” of the sentence: “black holes exist”, they simply didn’t exist.

Your constant reference of “you” is getting mighty boring.

I agree. “You” are getting mighty boring.

if you actually gave a coherent definition, something like: “Omniscience means that… yaddy, yaddy, yadda” then either repeat it here or present a link your alleged definition.

I did. Not surprisingly, you claimed it was “nonsense” and “irrational.” If nothing else, at least you’re consistent.

And while you are at it, point out the coherent meaning of “omnipotence”.

Able to do anything which one wills. (And, since I know your modus operandi, I’ll head you off at the pass: no, it doesn’t mean “able to do the things that one doesn’t will”.)

 

[Gorgias]

Nonsense. The brain is so complicated that the mapping process is individual. But we can see the result by engaging in a conversation. The English speaking party says “dog” and points to an animal… then the German speaking party says “Hund” and points to the same animal, and they both understand that they speak about the same entity. Using the principle of transitivity , if A = X and B = X, then A = B. Direct mapping is NOT necessary.

Nice try. Really – nice try! However, in that example, you don’t talk about physical neural states at all. You’re just waving your hands and talking about the mind – which, if you haven’t noticed, isn’t a physical concept at all.

So… welcome to the realm of the trancendental! I just knew you were a believer, under all that self-proclaimed skepticism!

No. The black holes existed, but the proposition “black holes exist” did not. You keep confusing propositions and concepts with their referents. You are getting more and more irrational. Now you confuse the concept with its referent.

Au contraire! You were the one who said that the statement of the propositions “before” and “after” are what made the temporal framework! So… which is it? Is it the proposition that makes the framework? Or is it the concept that exists, without prior referent? (See… you really can’t have it both ways… )

“ Will ” has nothing to do with “ ability ”. To say: “I don’t will it, but if I willed, I could do it” is the worst kind of cop-out.

Nice job ignoring the relevant half of the definition! (Now I know why you can’t find our discussions – when it doesn’t fit your agenda, you ignore the fact that they exist!) “Will” isn’t about ability, but doing is. Omnipotence is the ability to do all that one wills.

It is pretty bad when others think that you (in the general sense! - haha) are a moron, but it is infinitely worse to open your (in the general sense! brouhaha) mouth and confirm it with every sentence to utter.

I keep trying to tell you that. You insist on “opening your mouth”, though. I can’t save you from yourself, brother…

I certainly will be happy if I don’t see you ever again.

I know. I do refute your personal sense that you’re the only rational one here, don’t I?

 

[Richca]

Gorgias:

“An action means a ‘before’ or ‘after’” makes sense within the context of a temporal framework , but is meaningless in the context of the creation of the temporal framework itself.

No. The words “before” and “after” IMPLY and CREATE the temporal framework. And, of course the bible says: “God said, let there be light and there was light.” The alleged “atemporal” existence is pure stasis, unchanging and unchangeable, frozen existence. You cannot claim that God is “active” and yet “unchanging”.

Not only do we claim that God is active or rather pure act and unchanging but we must. Change involves potentiality to change which involves some agent to cause the change since potentiality cannot raise itself to actuality which is similar to the axiom ‘from nothing comes nothing.’ Therefore, to avoid an infinite regress we must posit a first agent who is wholly actual. This first agent we call God.

If you’re claiming that there’s no change from “no universe exists” to “universe exists”, then your claim that you’re rational lacks credibility.

Reply from Trevize:
Whoa! That is YOUR claim, not mine. I said that there IS a change, and that IMPLIES the before and after.

Creation is not a change properly speaking either on the part of God or creation itself. On the part of creation: before creation came to be it did not exist so there was nothing it could be changed from. You can’t change something that doesn’t exist either actually or potentially. Only in a certain mode of our understanding we might say that creation is a kind of change from non-being to being. But this isn’t change properly speaking because change implies something that can change, i.e, something now after the change that it wasn’t before. The universe was not a something at all before God created it.

On the part of God: a change on the part of God would imply he has a composition of potentiality but as noted above he is pure act, wholly, perfectly, and eternally actual. God has will. Now, for a will to change means that the will is willing something now that it wasn’t willing before. But, whatever God wills he has willed from eternity in an ever-abiding now, He is pure act. He doesn’t will something now that he hasn’t willed from all eternity nor is there a before and after in eternity. Accordingly, God willed from all eternity to create the world as well as the time so to speak he willed from all eternity to create it for the world is not eternal.