What would be your reaction?

[Back2Church]

What of it? The simple statement: “this proposition is false”, is just one statement in your phraseology, but it is a glaring contradiction nevertheless. The number of statements to highlight the contradiction is not relevant.

It’s not a contradiction without logic, and logic is rather procedural. Just like in grade school when the teacher says you must “show your work” rather than simply given the answer, no matter how simple the problem might be, I showed the steps that lead from a collection of propositions to a contradiction. Did I need to show the steps in order to point out the contradiction? Of course not, it’s obvious. But just because I can arrive at the contradiction without having to do the steps does not mean there are no steps.

It is more complicated, that is true. What does it have to do with anything?

Just like in Einstein’s proof of the impossibility of faster-than-light travel. Of course, this is a more complicated scenario, since there are three preconditions. However, since the concept of “omniscience” is contingent on all three of them, it is sufficient to prove that at least one of them is incorrect – it does not really matter, which one is the “culprit”.

Because the “culprit” could be the condition, not the one of the preconditions.

In our current scenario, the “future” has already happened from God’s point of view, but it did not happen from our point of view. But there is only one reality, which is not contingent upon the position of the observer (in the space-time continuum, or in some nebulous eternal, unchanging now). And that is exactly the same kind of contradiction as the “does the light reach the mirror, or does it not” type of problem. The future has already happened, or it has not happened yet. The contradiction is there.

It’s a contradiction in the thought experiment, based on the condition of the experiment being carried out. But the experiment cannot be carried out. So the entire thing boils down to “If , then .” The scenario has not happened yet, so neither has the contradiction.

That might sound like a cop-out at first, but chew on it for a bit. An experiment that can never be actualized, cannot yield actual results, only hypothetical ones. That’s not to say these results are useless, but we should not over-value them, either.

All I’m trying to point out is that a conditional proof is just that: conditional. The result depends on the truth value of the condition. In this particular discussion, the very conversation with God is a condition. Since it is not the case that this conversation has actually taken place, then I can’t agree that Catholic dogma has been proven as a contradiction.

I wish to thank you for the conversation. You are one of the very few partners, with whom it is possible to converse on a rational level. It is not necessary to agree with someone in order to feel respect for them. Cheers, mate!

Absolutely! It’s been fun! (really, it has been ).

If you do get banned, then I shall leave you with a parting gift (I assume you’ll at least be able to see the posts). I’ll give you an even better possible contradiction to argue, one that doesn’t rely on any kind of “what if” scenarios.

About a week or so ago, I was listening to Catholic Answers Live on the radio and a guy called in asking if Jesus has always had His glorified body (His post-resurrection body). The answer given was “no”, because "God became flesh, He was not always incarnate.

Well, I’m sure you can see the obvious contradiction with this in conjunction with the idea that God is immutable. Becoming flesh and gaining a glorified definitely sounds like a change to me. So there’s a new one to chew on.

I haven’t dug any further into this one, myself, so there may be a simple defense against this one that I don’t know of. But it seems like a pretty decent argument against God’s immutability at first glance, to me.

And in light of this, I can answer your original question of “What would be your reaction?”. Even in this seemingly glaring contradiction, I don’t find it to be in conflict with my faith in God or my faith in the church. While I strive to do my best to understand all that I can about God and the faith, I still recognize and acknowledge that I’m just one limited mind and that there’s no reasonable way that I will ever be able to fully understand God, much less learn and understand 2000 years worth of church teachings. So I simply yield to the church’s wisdom on such things I find confusing, contradicting, or otherwise incomprehensible (to me).

I do so with confidence, because my faith (in God and in the Catholic church) is not just a product of a pursuit of truth, but of divine intervention. The kind of stuff atheists discard as hogwash.

If you’re up for a challenge (I’m sure you’ve heard something like this before ), then the next time you’re alone at night and you see a shooting star, make a wish to know the truth. The truth about the universe, God, fate, etc. That’s how it all started for me (I was an atheist at the time, but was questioning some rather uncanny events that had recently occurred), and it got the ball rolling down a wild, unbelievable road that lead me to God and eventually the Catholic church. So even if you could prove that all Catholic dogmas were in contradiction with each other, I would still not be shaken, because I cannot deny the events and experiences that have lead me to where I am today. You might deny them, but I can’t!

 

[tonyrey]

became

flesh, He was not always incarnate.

Well, I’m sure you can see the obvious contradiction with this in conjunction with the idea that God is immutable. Becoming flesh and gaining a glorified definitely sounds like a change to me. So there’s a new one to chew on.

I haven’t dug any further into this one, myself, so there may be a simple defense against this one that I don’t know of. But it seems like a pretty decent argument against God’s immutability at first glance, to me.

“In God we live and move and have our being.”

The fact that God is both transcendent and immanent implies that the Incarnation is consistent with immutability.

 

[Bagheera]

Looks like I am still “alive”, so I can provide an answer.

Back2Church:

It’s a contradiction in the thought experiment, based on the condition of the experiment being carried out. But the experiment cannot be carried out. So the entire thing boils down to “If , then .” The scenario has not happened yet, so neither has the contradiction.

That might sound like a cop-out at first, but chew on it for a bit. An experiment that can never be actualized, cannot yield actual results, only hypothetical ones. That’s not to say these results are useless, but we should not over-value them, either.

Of course it cannot be carried out, and that is the “aim” of the thought-experiment, to show that the starting conditions are impossible. Do you find any problem with the thought experiment proving that faster than light travel is impossible? We can conduct another thought experiment proving that traveling into the past is also impossible – due to the grandfather paradox.

To have an actual experiment to substantiate a positive hypothesis is great, and useful to expand our knowledge. To have a hypothetical experiment to prove a negative hypothesis is exactly as good. Observe the two verbs used. We can only substantiate a positive hypothesis but was can prove that a certain set of conditions is impossible. Also, a negative knowledge is exactly as useful as a positive one.

Back2Church:

All I’m trying to point out is that a conditional proof is just that: conditional. The result depends on the truth value of the condition. In this particular discussion, the very conversation with God is a condition. Since it is not the case that this conversation has actually taken place, then I can’t agree that Catholic dogma has been proven as a contradiction.

Just curious: what would be the verb you would use instead of “proven”? Don’t you agree that faster than light travel, or traveling into the past are “proven” to be impossible?

Back2Church:

Well, I’m sure you can see the obvious contradiction with this in conjunction with the idea that God is immutable. Becoming flesh and gaining a glorified definitely sounds like a change to me. So there’s a new one to chew on.

Yes, it is a good one. I can give you others. For example:

God is infinitely merciful.
God is perfectly just.

These two are incompatible. “Just” and “merciful” are fully secular concepts. A judge delivers a “just” sentence, if the penalty is exactly commensurate to the deed. A lenient or merciful sentence means that the penalty is “less” than deserved. Obviously these two cannot both happen at the same time. Of course, it could be argued that God is sometimes “merciful” and other times “just”, but that would also be a cop-out.

Another problem would be to reconcile an active God with timeless existence. Any “action” implies a “change”. A change implies a “before” and an “after” and that implies some kind of a “time”.

Back2Church:

If you’re up for a challenge (I’m sure you’ve heard something like this before ), then the next time you’re alone at night and you see a shooting star, make a wish to know the truth. The truth about the universe, God, fate, etc.

Been there, done it, have a t-shirt to prove it. Nothing ever happened.

 

[DanAl]

what would be my reaction? To pack my belongings and turn to the orthodox catholic church (AKA eastern orthodox church).

So, what is your example?

 

[DanAl]

#'s 29 & 30 seem to entail that God’s knowledge is actually infinite. I can just hear WLC: “Hwell, hwhat’s problematic here is that actual infinites are impossible.”

Actual infinities are impossible, how is that related to knowing all possible things?

 

[DanAl]

Since there was no disagreement about the link to the divine attributes as described in the dogmas, we can go on. For the sake of simplicity I will present the argument in a dialog fashion. The two participants are: “God as imagined by the catholics, and presented in the dogmas” (let’s call him “G”) and a simple skeptic (let’s call him “S”). I will refer to the number of the dogma to save space. A quick recap, first (so you don’t have to scroll up).

1. God’s knowledge is independent of extra-divine things
2. God knows all that is merely possible by the knowledge of simple intelligence (scientia simplicis intelligentiae). (De fide.)
3. God knows all real things in the past, the present and the future (Scientia visionis). (De fide.)
4. By knowledge of vision (scientia visionis) God also foresees the free acts of the rational creatures with infallible certainty. (De fide.)
5. God also knows the conditioned future free actions with infallible certainty (Scientia futuribilium). (Sent. communis.)
   S: Hi there G. I understand that you have perfect knowledge.
   G: Exactly, as described in #35, #36, #37 and #38.
   S: And that knowledge is absolute, it is “not contingent” on anything.
   G: Yes, as described in #33.
   S: Cool… Now you see these 3 dice in front of me. One is red, one is green and one is blue. I intend to pick up some of them within the next 5 minutes, and roll them.
   G: Very well.
   S: I understand that I am confined by time, but you are not. Is this correct?
   G: It certainly is. For you the selection and the toss did not happen yet, but from my perspective, they did. I can see from my perspective which dice will you pick up, when will you pick them up and what will be the result of the toss.
   S: These are just words. You need to prove your assertion, if you want me to accept your omniscience.
   G: What do you want?
   S: Simple. Just tell me the result.
   G: I cannot tell you.
   S: Why not? You have the knowledge and you can share it, can’t you?
   G: I am sure you know why.
   S: I do, but the kibitzers over my shoulder don’t. They need your explanation, why can’t you reveal the result.
   G: Ok. Kibitzers, pay attention. If I reveal the result of the toss to “S”, before it happens, he will use this information and make sure it is invalidated. If I say that he will pick up 2 dice (say the red and the green) at the precise moment of 1 minutes hence, he will do something else - maybe pick up the blue die 30 seconds hence.
   S: Hold it, please. According to #38, you also know my conditioned actions, namely what I will do if you reveal my actions and I use that extra knowledge.
   G: Yes, correct.
   S: Can you prove it?
   G: Nope. If I would do that, you would have an “updated” version of the future, and you could use that information again.
   S: I know. And this is the trick. As soon as you reveal the information about the future, I will make sure that it is invalidated. As such your “perfect” knowledge of the future is conditional, it is dependent or contingent upon keeping that knowledge “secret”.
   G: Exactly. And that contradicts the dogma #33.

So, kibitzers, now you have your logical inconsistency among the dogmas. It is up you what to do with it. Now, keep in mind, this little dialog did not “disprove” God at all. It only disproved the concept of God as presented by the church and as described in the dogmas.

A-Infallible knowledge cannot fail t but to obtain.

B-It is within our power to frustrate infallible knowledge.

Both claims cannot be true. But why must we accept the second over the first? How is it within our power to frustrate infallible knowledge?

 

[Richca]

.

Here is a very simple way to present the problem (no fluff at all):