What would be your reaction?

[Paddy_Walker]

…

That is NOT the scenario, not even close. What the agent is interested in is to receive a prediction about his free, future action. When the agent receives the prediction, he is free to either comply with the prediction, or act against it. The agent has not used his free will at the time this conversation takes place. The question is: “what happens to that ‘unchanging, eternal now’ where God resides?”.

The problem arises if we accept that God’s “eternal, unchanging now” is correct, because in this case we do not have freedom to make a different decision. It is only an illusion that we are “free” to act differently. On the other hand, if we are truly able to act differently, then God’s “eternal, unchanging now” is not “unchanging”, it is contingent upon our future decision. If we keep oscillating between choosing “X” and “not-X”, then God’s “knowledge” is also “flip-flopping”. And this is the contradiction that cannot be resolved.

Well we know he cannot lie. That is one of the main attributes of a God who is in fact Truth.
So if you insisted on him giving you an answer he would tell you what you would do and that in fact is what you would do. Your free will is not compromised because you asked for your own decision in advance of your making it.
After you had fulfilled his prediction you would continue with your freewill and God with his knowledge of all possibilities and knowledge of which possibilities you would choose but you of course make the choices He only knows the choice you make, he does not design the choice you make nor does he insist on any particular outcome until you insist that he insists on a particular outcome for you. Which he does at your free request in advance.
simple.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Last time I heard there was a story that God used to “mingle” among us in that mythology book called the bible. Also another story about some \one called “Jesus”, who was also supposed to be both human and “God”. Of course, if you believe that this is just an unsupported fairy tale, that is quite ok by me.

Yes, let us discuss the Trinity then.
That seems the issue.

 

[Back2Church]

The original intent of this thread was to find out what people’s reactions would be if it could be if Catholic dogma was proven to be self contradictory. Since a self contradiction has not been proven yet, I think it’s safe to say the original purpose of this thread will never be actualized.

So allow me to present a follow up question: What reaction were you expecting to see, if a self contradiction in Catholic dogma was actually able to be proven?

 

[Bagheera]

The original intent of this thread was to find out what people’s reactions would be if it could be if Catholic dogma was proven to be self contradictory. Since a self contradiction has not been proven yet, I think it’s safe to say the original purpose of this thread will never be actualized.

Of course it has been proven.

So allow me to present a follow up question: What reaction were you expecting to see, if a self contradiction in Catholic dogma was actually able to be proven?

I expected to see what I got now. Many irrelevant posts, changing the parameters, declaring a contradiction to be a mystery. Anything and everything, except facing the unpleasant reality. What else is new?

 

[Jaaanosik]

Of course it has been proven.

I expected to see what I got now. Many irrelevant posts, changing the parameters, declaring a contradiction to be a mystery. Anything and everything, except facing the unpleasant reality. What else is new?

What you’ve proven is that you don’t know much about the Trinity.

 

[Back2Church]

Of course it has been proven.

I expected to see what I got now. Many irrelevant posts, changing the parameters, declaring a contradiction to be a mystery. Anything and everything, except facing the unpleasant reality. What else is new?

No, it hasn’t been proven, as I clearly pointed out earlier, which you have not acknowledged or challenged at all. Qui tacet consentit (He who is silent consents, or as it is commonly stated “Silence is agreeance.”).

Have you considered the possibility that it’s actually you who is refusing to face a reality you feel opposed to? I’m happy to admit I cannot come up with a logical response, if I find that to be the case, but you have to prove my logic is flawed. Since you have not, I can only assume you cannot until you show otherwise.

I do not resort to using the mystery explanation. I do not dismiss the parameters of the experiment. I’ve made all my arguments in a purely rational, logical way. What more can you ask for?

I’m not just going to accept your argument if I see reasonable arguments against it. And you should not expect me to, or even want me to, if you want an actual intellectual discussion. In fact, to expect me to simply accept your argument without challenge is exactly the same kind of error you accuse others of having when they say you just have to accept their position on God. Don’t fall into the same error you accuse others of having.

 

[Bagheera]

What you’ve proven is that you don’t know much about the Trinity.

You mean, another self-contradictory proposition?

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Yes, God knows.
How does it changes your free will what to have for dinner?

Don’t mix up God’s point of view and your point of view.

Because it would be like clicking “run scan” on an anti-virus program and then claiming that the anti-virus program chose to scan by its own free will. I knew what would happen, I executed the command, it happened. No free will in there.

 

[Bagheera]

No, it hasn’t been proven, as I clearly pointed out earlier, which you have not acknowledged or challenged at all. Qui tacet consentit (He who is silent consents, or as it is commonly stated “Silence is agreeance.”).

Nonsense. I leave many posts unanswered, simply because they are not worth to contemplate. Of course, if you think that this kind of silence means agreement, then you are welcome to think so, but that assumption simply removes you from rational consideration. There are a few people who keep using that cheapo tactics, and I never acknowledge them.

If you wish to make a criticism of the post #182 , which is as concise as can be, please do so. I will read it.

 

[Jaaanosik]

You mean, another self-contradictory proposition?

If something appears self-contradictory to you it does not mean everybody else is going to see it the same way.
You should think why is that happening.

 

[Back2Church]

Nonsense. I leave many posts unanswered, simply because they are not worth to contemplate. Of course, if you think that this kind of silence means agreement, then you are welcome to think so, but that assumption simply removes you from rational consideration. There are a few people who keep using that cheapo tactics, and I never acknowledge them.

If you wish to make a criticism of the post #182 , which is as concise as can be, please do so. I will read it.

Your initial intent was to prove Catholic dogma as self contradictory. I have given you a perfectly reasonable response in post 162. All you seem to be able to respond with is “nonsense,” yet you seem to be unable to explain why you think it is nonsense.

Read my post again, the whole thing this time, and try to actually understand the argument I’m giving you. If you think the argument is nonsense, then you’re not understanding the argument properly. To dismiss it under such a position is no different than anyone else dismissing your own arguments as “impossible.”

Read 162 again, and consider these two questions:
A) Is God’s knowledge of the future contingent upon your actions, or are you simply a middle man and the contingency actually lies somewhere else?
B) Might you be misunderstanding the true sense of what is meant by “independent” in dogma #33?

 

[MPat]

I use the definition of free will as you quoted. I am interested in the aspect of omniscience which says: “God has knowledge of the future events before they occur”. Of course I already made this abundantly clear before. The catholic argument is that God “dwells” in an “eternal and unchanging now”, that our future decisions are already available to him, before we make those decisions. This is the scenario. So far you did not address it.

So far I am trying to find out if there is anything to address. I suspect that there isn’t.

That is NOT the scenario, not even close. What the agent is interested in is to receive a prediction about his free, future action. When the agent receives the prediction, he is free to either comply with the prediction, or act against it. The agent has not used his free will at the time this conversation takes place. The question is: “what happens to that ‘unchanging, eternal now’ where God resides?”.

The problem arises if we accept that God’s “eternal, unchanging now” is correct, because in this case we do not have freedom to make a different decision. It is only an illusion that we are “free” to act differently. On the other hand, if we are truly able to act differently, then God’s “eternal, unchanging now” is not “unchanging”, it is contingent upon our future decision. If we keep oscillating between choosing “X” and “not-X”, then God’s “knowledge” is also “flip-flopping”. And this is the contradiction that cannot be resolved.

OK. So, “S” hasn’t used his “free will” as defined by you during the “conversation” (I didn’t say it happened at that time, but whatever). In such case, where, when, how is “free will” supposed to be used in your scenario? During the hypothetical case when “S” actually gets the prediction? Or am I misunderstanding you once more? Anyway, whenever it is used, take your own criteria and fill out this form to show that the use of “free will” fits your own definition:

1. The goal of “S” is ___.
2. The ways to achieve the goal of “S” are ___ and ___.
3. Outside forces do not determine the decision of “S”, because ___.

I’ll repeat your definition once more, to make it clear that this “form” corresponds to it.

1. The usual definition is composed of 3 parts:

• There is someone who wishes to achieve some goal.
• There are at least two ways to achieve that goal.
• The locus of decision is with the person, whose decision is not determined by outside forces. (The decision might be influenced, but not determined)

Of course, my prediction is that you will not fill out that form in the way that does demonstrate the presence of “free will” (as defined by you). I wonder if this prediction can violate your free will…?

 

[Bagheera]

So far I am trying to find out if there is anything to address. I suspect that there isn’t.

The question was presented :“What happens to the eternal, unchanging ‘now’?”. You gave no answer, and keep dodging it. The execution of “free will” was stated in the post. Read it again.

 

[dshix]

From the time that I first posted in this thread, early in the thread, I’ve been watching and reading everything said.

From the first, I have been disregarding the hypothetical put forward by the OP because it is an invalid hypothetical; it could never occur because God would not let Himself be controlled by a human in such a way.

However, just a few minutes ago, I actually thought about the hypothetical for the first time, and it, even if we disregard the fact that it is invalid, doesn’t work anyway.

The OP states that when God makes his prediction about what the OP will do, the OP will simply do something different in order to prove God’s prediction wrong. But God would simply make a new prediction every time the OP changes his mind. Consider:

Situation: 9 6-side dice on the table; three red, three blue, three green.

God: “At this moment, your mind is to pick up one die from each color; if you do so, the result will be X.”

(Atheist decides to pick up three greens instead to disprove God, and begins to reach towards the dice.)

God: “Ah, you just changed your mind to picking up three green.”

(Atheist changes his mind to two red dice.)

God: “You changed your mind to picking up two red dice.”

(Atheist changes his mind to picking up all the dice.)

God: “Now you are going to pick up all the dice.”

-ad infinitum-

Furthermore, if the atheist attempted to play some other trick, like closing his eyes and picking randomly, or by changing his mind and picking the dice really fast, God could still infallibly predict his actions, and the atheist could not disprove or prove anything.

You see, OP, this hypothetical is worthless. It proves nothing by itself, and that added to the fact that it could never occur renders it utterly pointless.

 

[Bagheera]

Your initial intent was to prove Catholic dogma as self contradictory. I have given you a perfectly reasonable response in post 162.

You are wrong. It was not reasonable AT ALL.

You wrote: “What this argument fails to recognize is that in order to invalidate God’s knowledge, the person needs God’s knowledge”. The authors of that dogma did not have access to “God’s knowledge”, and yet they made that pronouncement. On what grounds?

You wrote: “God’s knowledge is not dependent on extra-divine things. God simply has all knowledge of extra-divine things.” Knowledge is the one-to-one correspondence between a mental state and the external reality. The external reality is not part of God, it exists independently from God. Of course if the current state of reality is known, and the system is fully deterministic, then the future can be known before it happens.

You wrote: "Can be implied as this:
“God’s knowledge is contingent upon God keeping it secret.”
or
“God’s knowledge is contingent upon God.”

No contradiction with dogma #33 here. "
Incorrect analysis. We ONLY talk about God’s knowledge pertaining to the free actions of agents. Instead of “God’s knowledge is contingent upon God keeping it secret.” you should have written: “God’s knowledge OF THE ACTION OF A FREE AGENT is contingent upon God keeping it secret FROM THAT FREE AGENT.” And that cannot be changed into: “God’s knowledge is contingent upon God.”

You wrote: “God’s knowledge of our actions depends on our actions.” That’s like saying “The answer of 4 to the math problem 2 + 2 depends on the sum of 2 + 2.”. Bad analogy. The answer to a math problem is contingent upon the axioms chosen.

You wrote: “In the same way we can say that God has all knowledge of extra-divine things. His knowledge is of everything and always has been.” Is such an empty, unsubstantiated statement an example of your “reasonable” answer?

You wrote: “If one insists that God’s knowledge of extra-divine things is dependent on those extra-divine things, because without those extra-divine things He would not have knowledge of them (only knowledge of the possibility of them), then it should be noted that this concept cannot be a source of contradiction for dogma #33. Obviously God cannot have knowledge of extra-divine things if those extra-divine things did not exists. He would have knowledge of their possibility, but not knowledge of their actuality.” Well, at least this is almost fine. Here the contradiction is with dogma #38.

**You wrote:**But to claim this contradicts dogma #33 is to read something into this dogma that isn’t there. I read the dogma verbatim. It says exactly what it says.

**You wrote:**If this is the sense of dependence that dogma #33 was speaking about, then nothing could actually exist. Such an interpretation of this particular dogma only allows for God to have knowledge of possibilities and does not allow anything other than God to actually exists.It is not that simplistic. Knowledge of the future is possible in a fully deterministic system even before the future happens. It is only the free actions of free agents which cannot be “known” until they occur.

Well, I may have wasted about 2 hours on reading and replying to your post. Now the ball is in your court. Are you going to answer to #182?

 

[Back2Church]

From the time that I first posted in this thread, early in the thread, I’ve been watching and reading everything said.

From the first, I have been disregarding the hypothetical put forward by the OP because it is an invalid hypothetical; it could never occur because God would not let Himself be controlled by a human in such a way.

However, just a few minutes ago, I actually thought about the hypothetical for the first time, and it, even if we disregard the fact that it is invalid, doesn’t work anyway.

The OP states that when God makes his prediction about what the OP will do, the OP will simply do something different in order to prove God’s prediction wrong. But God would simply make a new prediction every time the OP changes his mind. Consider:

Situation: 9 6-side dice on the table; three red, three blue, three green.

God: “At this moment, your mind is to pick up one die from each color; if you do so, the result will be X.”

(Atheist decides to pick up three greens instead to disprove God, and begins to reach towards the dice.)

God: “Ah, you just changed your mind to picking up three green.”

(Atheist changes his mind to two red dice.)

God: “You changed your mind to picking up two red dice.”

(Atheist changes his mind to picking up all the dice.)

God: “Now you are going to pick up all the dice.”

-ad infinitum-

Furthermore, if the atheist attempted to play some other trick, like closing his eyes and picking randomly, or by changing his mind and picking the dice really fast, God could still infallibly predict his actions, and the atheist could not disprove or prove anything.

You see, OP, this hypothetical is worthless. It proves nothing by itself, and that added to the fact that it could never occur renders it utterly pointless.

Well, I have to say I see a huge problem with your argument. Atheists don’t talk to God. lol

 

[Bagheera]

-ad infinitum-

There is no ad infinitum. Read #182

 

[Bagheera]

Well, I have to say I see a huge problem with your argument. Atheists don’t talk to God. lol

Oh, I would be delighted to talk to God, if only he would be willing to participate.

 

[MPat]

The question was presented :“What happens to the eternal, unchanging ‘now’?”. You gave no answer, and keep dodging it. The execution of “free will” was stated in the post. Read it again.

So, my prediction was correct, wasn’t it…?

“What happens to the eternal, unchanging ‘now’?” - nothing. It has nothing to do with your scenario. If you want to show otherwise, do it. I have given you an explanation why I think it is irrelevant (the step-by-step simplification until we reach the point of “Choose x, for which x = not x.”, that does not have much to do with “eternal, unchanging now” - it is simply time-independent), you have only asserted otherwise with no detailed explanation. So, I think that the first step for you would be to demonstrate (in a detailed way, with no steps skipped) that your scenario has something to do with “free will” (as you define it).

And concerning that same “free will” - in your previous post you have not demonstrated that all three conditions are present (at least not in the way that I would understand). You mentioned a goal (the first condition), but then added that there is no free will involved during the conversation (when that goal is “active”). You haven’t mentioned the other two conditions. That’s why I have given you a “form” that should make demonstration easier. Assuming there is something to write into it…

 

[dshix]

There is no ad infinitum. Read #182

In answer to your post 182: This PROVES that God would not enter such a ludicrous situation as shown in the hypothetical. Since we humans are in time, and He is outside of time, it is impossible for us to communicate in the way that you offered in the hypothetical without either the human entering the eternal now with God (in which case the hypothetical is invalid) or if God would enter time temporarily (in which case my answer to your hypothetical, in my previous post, would defeat the hypothetical).

You can’t have it both ways, Bagheera. Both you and God must be either in time or outside of time for the hypothetical to occur.