What would be your reaction?

[Back2Church]

I will wait until you respond to #182, before giving a detailed response to this post. For the time being all I wish to say that you did not give any actual arguments, you merely quoted the words of some people, who did not offer any arguments either. Of course, the method of “quoting” is not problematic in and of itself, the problem is that those quotes were empty assertions and not arguments. More on this after I see your reply on #182.

You took a quote from Augustine out of context and jumped to a conclusion, which was:

Aha. So catholics believe that we are a figment of God’s imagination, or simply puppets, who play out God’s thoughts about us. There is no independent reality. So much for “free will”, which the catholics ALSO believe in. This is yet another internal inconsistency / contradiction in the catholic belief system.

I simply offered the context to show you that the conclusion was faulty, due to being based partial information. Not your fault. You simply didn’t have it. Now you do. If you want to expose an internal inconsistency within Catholic dogma, you first need to understand it fully. Or at least understand the relevant parts that pertain to this discussion.

As for post #182:

The thread is again deteriorating into irrelevancies. I am restating the relevant point in a very concise format for those who wish to engage in a rational conversation:

B: Please make a prediction about my future action, where I can choose to perform either “X” or “not-X”. Currently I am inclined to choose “X”. What is your prediction?
G: It is simple. There is no future for me, I can see (in this unchanging, eternal now) that you will perform X. It is not really a “prediction”, from my point of view, I see the actual outcome.
B: Thank you. However, I did not perform “X” as of yet, so what you call “actual outcome” is only a “possible outcome” for me. As a matter of fact, I am contemplating to perform not-X. But, please, before I actually carry out this inclination, answer this: What does your “eternal, unchanging now” show NOW?

At this point the experiment “forks” into two possibilities.

#1:
G: Obviously, now it shows that you are going to perform “not-X”.
B: Aha. So your “eternal, unchangeable now” has changed?

#2:
G: It still shows that you are going to perform “X”.
B: Very well. So I am performing “not-X”. (B actually acts at this moment). What happened to you “eternal, unchanging now”?

Just think about it. And have fun!

Well, there’s a pretty big problem with this particular hypothetical exchange. In order to prove something is self contradictory, you have to assume all the premises are true and produce a contradiction. In this exchange, you have assumed the premises (the Catholic dogmas) were false. You cannot produce a valid contradiction in such a way.

If God has foreknowledge of all things, then He would see this exchange in its entirety and would not respond right off the bat with a prediction of X, knowing you would simply choose not-X immediately after. This argument basically discards dogmas 36, 37, and 38 in the second line (God’s first response).

Your original hypothetical exchange in Post #31 was much better than this one, since it stays true to Catholic dogma throughout the entire dialog and attempts to produce a contradiction.

 

[Back2Church]

Or your understanding of God is faulty. Which is not surprising, considering that one of the dogmas says “7. God’s Nature is incomprehensible to men.”. You guys like to speak of something that is incomprehensible to you. In other words, you have no idea what you are talking about. And then, to add insult to injury, you also assert that this is “rational”.

Actually, it’s your understanding of “incomprehensible” that’s faulty.

The dogma, “God’s Nature is incomprehensible to men,” does not mean we don’t know anything about God. It just means we don’t know everything about God.

Here’s a more comprehensive view of this dogma, take from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

God’s Nature is incomprehensible to men. (De Fide.)

Our knowledge of God in this world is a composition of many inadequate concepts, and on account of this composition, it is necessarily limited and imperfect. The 4th Lateran Council (1215) and the Vatican Council, call God “incomprehensible,” the Lateran Council also calls Him “ineffable”.

The Fathers, notably St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. John Chrysostom, defend the incomprehensibility of the Divine Essence by indicating the infinity and the sublimity of God in comparison with all creatures, against the Eunomians, who assumed an exhaustive (adequate or comprehensive) cognition of God, and indeed even in this world. St. Augustine says: “More true than our speech about God is our thinking of Him, and more true than our thinking is His Being.” Only God possesses a comprehensive knowledge of God; for the Infinite Being can be completely comprehended by an Infinite Intellect only. “God whose Being is infinite, is infinitely knowable. No created understanding can, however, know God in an infinite manner.”

 

[Bagheera]

Well, there’s a pretty big problem with this particular hypothetical exchange. In order to prove something is self contradictory, you have to assume all the premises are true and produce a contradiction. In this exchange, you have assumed the premises (the Catholic dogmas) were false. You cannot produce a valid contradiction in such a way.

No, in this post I accepted the catholic teaching (based upon the dogmas of 36, 37 and 38) - that God lives in an “eternal, unchanging now” and sees the whole “timeline” as “now” - as a premise, and explored where that premise would lead (without any “frills”).

If God has foreknowledge of all things, then He would see this exchange in its entirety and would not respond right off the bat with a prediction of X, knowing you would simply choose not-X immediately after. This argument basically discards dogmas 36, 37, and 38 in the second line (God’s first response).

I did not discard them, even though they are not mentioned explicitly. The point of the exchange is that there are two possible responses from God and both answers will lead to a contradiction, namely that God’s “unchanging, eternal now” is not unchanging. That is all.

It is not necessary that such an exchange actually would take place. (After all God never converses with anyone.) The hypothetical exchange shows the contradiction. It is just like contemplating the problem of traveling into the past. If one could travel into the past, he could make a change which would make his travel impossible. (The grandfather paradox). The actual “traveling” into the past is not necessary to show the paradox. Precisely as in this current dilemma: “if one would know the future, he could use this knowledge to invalidate that future”.

These are two sides of the same “coin”. The past already has happened, so it is knowable, but unchangeable, while the future has not happened yet, so it is unknowable but changeable.

 

[Bagheera]

I simply offered the context to show you that the conclusion was faulty, due to being based partial information. Not your fault. You simply didn’t have it. Now you do. If you want to expose an internal inconsistency within Catholic dogma, you first need to understand it fully. Or at least understand the relevant parts that pertain to this discussion.

Ok, I will go back to the post and reply in detail. One preliminary remark is necessary. It is not necessary to quote anyone. If, what you say is valid and rational, you don’t need external confirmation. However, if the argument is not rational, no amount of “expert” opinion will make it rational. In either case it is a waste of your time and the bandwidth.

Yes, option #2 in your list is the closest to what Augustine describes, but you are looking at it from a physical deterministic angle, which is not accurate.

Nope, I look at it from the logical deterministic angle. You said that God’s “knowledge” is primary, and it is the causative agent for the existence of reality. Exactly as you quoted Augustine.

Next you quoted:

“As the idea of the artist illuminates and directs his willing and activity in the execution of a work of art, so also the ideas of God which are factually identical with His knowledge, direct His Divine Willing and the Divine Activity in extra-Divine operations.”

The analogy is incorrect on several counts. First, he confuses the “imagination” with “knowledge”. The artist may have a plan, a desire to produce some artifact, but he does not “know” the outcome until the “fat lady sings”. The other reason why the analogy is incorrect is that the artifact is static object, not an agent with freedom of action.

Divine knowledge in association with Divine Will is the exemplary and efficient cause (causa exemplaris and causa efficiens) of all finite things.

This does not explain how the agent’s free will is preserved. By the way, it is NOT the foreknowledge what makes free will impossible. It is what make knowledge possible, the unchangeable nature of the “known” events. You can “know” it because it is unchangeable. Taking an example: I have two **hypothetical **options for breakfast, either cereal (yuck!) or ham-and-eggs (yum!) If God already knows that I will have cereal, and his knowledge determines reality, then my other option is impossible to come true. I cannot change what is part of reality.

But this isn’t to be understood under concept of strict determinism, where free will cannot exist. God can know all things without undermining free-will, because the free wills themselves are causes.

Empty words! If the will itself is caused, then the result of the will is also caused.

One might understand and accept all of this, yet still claim that ultimately free will is just an illusion, since God knows the outcome of every event and His knowledge is the cause of all creation. On this, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma says:

The dogma of human freedom (D 815) is not abrogated by the dogma of the infallible certainty of the Divine prevision of future free actions. The Fathers point to the eternal character of the Divine knowing and conclude that the Divine foreknowledge imposes as little compulsion on future actions as human remembering does on the past.

This is another “DUH!” moment. “The Fathers point…” come on buddy. Now, if our actions would be the primary causative factors of God’s foreknowledge (God could “peek” somehow into the future and know what we SHALL do) then it would lead to the other problem: “God’s knowledge would be contingent”. You are between a rock and a hard place.

Catholics believe that God’s knowledge is the cause of all things, and we believe that God’s knowledge is so vast and comprehensive that it contains more than just a mere static script of our universe. It contains knowledge of a living, breathing universe, with natural laws that bring about effects and rational beings with true free will. Just because he could see all of the choices we made before we made them does not mean he forced us to make those choices.

Do you really think that this is an argument? That “catholics” believe? Catholics also believe that Jesus walked on water. Is such a “belief” considered be a “rational argument”?

So no, this is not an internal inconsistency or contradiction. I get that you won’t accept or believe in any of this, but, to be frank, that has no bearing on the discussion of whether or not Catholic dogma is internally consistent.

Since you never could give an argument how is freedom to act preserved in a deterministic universe, this “disclaimer” carries no weight. Sorry.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

this current dilemma: “if one would know the future, he could use this knowledge to invalidate that future”.

These are two sides of the same “coin”. The past already has happened, so it is knowable, but unchangeable, while the future has not happened yet, so it is unknowable but changeable.

“if one would know the future, he could use this knowledge to invalidate that future”.

I personally don’t think so. Two possibilities/probabilities exist.

You could be shown the future as it would be without change.
or
You could be shown the future and be allowed to change it.

These are the two possibilities that would exist if such an offer were made.

 

[Richca]

Or your understanding of God is faulty. Which is not surprising, considering that one of the dogmas says “7. God’s Nature is incomprehensible to men.”. You guys like to speak of something that is incomprehensible to you. In other words, you have no idea what you are talking about. And then, to add insult to injury, you also assert that this is “rational”.

It is not irrational to say that a finite creature such as us cannot comprehend the infinite God. Indeed, this is sound common sense. I’m not to sure how you missed this.
What would be irrational is if one thought that a finite creature can comprehend the infinite God. This would be approaching infinite irrationality.

 

[Bagheera]

I personally don’t think so. Two possibilities/probabilities exist.

You could be shown the future as it would be without change.
or
You could be shown the future and be allowed to change it.

These are the two possibilities that would exist if such an offer were made.

Why “or”? Not to be “allowed” to change the prediction would be to remove the free will of the agent.

 

[Bagheera]

It is not irrational to say that a finite creature such as us cannot comprehend the infinite God. Indeed, this is sound common sense. I’m not to sure how you missed this.
What would be irrational is if one thought that a finite creature can comprehend the infinite God. This would be approaching infinite irrationality.

You speak of yourself. It is “you” and the other christians who assert all sorts of things about the unknowable and incomprehensible God of yours. The first questionable assertion is that God is “infinite”. How do you “know” with your finite mind that God is “infinite”? Using your own words: “This would be approaching infinite irrationality.”

 

[Richca]

You speak of yourself. It is “you” and the other christians who assert all sorts of things about the unknowable and incomprehensible God of yours. The first questionable assertion is that God is “infinite”. How do you “know” with your finite mind that God is “infinite”? Using your own words: “This would be approaching infinite irrationality.”

"•Psalm 147:5 - “Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit.”

•Revelation 1:8 - “I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God, who is and who was, and who is to come. The Almighty.”

“Great is the LORD and worthy of much praise, whose grandeur is beyond understanding” (Psalm 145:3).

“See, God is great beyond our knowledge, the number of his years past searching out.” (Job 36:26)

All finite beings are not the cause of their own being, for their was a time when they did not exist and existence does not come from nothing. And if one finite being is the cause of another finite being, we cannot regress to an infinity in this way or nothing would exist. Consequently, we must assert an infinite uncaused being who causes the being of all finite beings.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

Why “or”? Not to be “allowed” to change the prediction would be to remove the free will of the agent.

Because you might decide to ask an omnipotent Being to prevent you from changing your future.
That is another probability which needs to be considered, as nothing is impossible for God.

 

[Back2Church]

I did not discard them, even though they are not mentioned explicitly. The point of the exchange is that there are two possible responses from God and both answers will lead to a contradiction, namely that God’s “unchanging, eternal now” is not unchanging. That is all.

If you assume God’s unchanging, eternal now is true (which you must do if you want to prove a contradiction), then you cannot portray Him as being clueless to the future.

In your exchange, God reports an outcome, giving no indication that He has any idea what is about to happen next. This portrays God as not being in an unchanging, eternal now. Since that’s exactly what you are trying to prove, this falls under the fallacy of assuming the consequent.

I get what you’re trying to show, but this particular argument just doesn’t work.

 

[Bagheera]

Because you might decide to ask an omnipotent Being to prevent you from changing your future.

This would be asking God to remove my free will. Why should I do that? And also according to the catholic teaching, this is something that God would NEVER do. Our “free will” is supposed to be respected by God. So this is not a valid option.

That is another probability which needs to be considered, as nothing is impossible for God.

This “sound bite” is wearing pretty thin. Not even God can create a married bachelor, or modify the past. Logical contradictions are beyond God’s powers.

 

[Bagheera]

If you assume God’s unchanging, eternal now is true (which you must do if you want to prove a contradiction), then you cannot portray Him as being clueless to the future.

I am not assuming that at all. I merely say that any possible answer from God leads to refutation of that “eternal, unchanging now”.

In your exchange, God reports an outcome, giving no indication that He has any idea what is about to happen next.

I did not say or insinuate this. God is unable to give an answer, which does not “clobber” the assumption of the “eternal, unchanging now”.

This portrays God as not being in an unchanging, eternal now.

Yes, but this is not part of the premises, it is the result of the exchange.

I suggest you go back to the hypothetical conversation, and analyze it line by line (giving your analysis for every sentence) so we can be on the same wavelength.

 

[Hypnotoad]

Or your understanding of God is faulty. Which is not surprising, considering that one of the dogmas says “7. God’s Nature is incomprehensible to men.”. You guys like to speak of something that is incomprehensible to you. In other words, you have no idea what you are talking about. And then, to add insult to injury, you also assert that this is “rational”.

Ah so here is the problem. The attack on mystery! Your mistake is thinking that mystery is contrary to rational thinking when it isn’t, its’ beyond it. It is a higher plain of knowledge, a plain you cannot reach so you feel you have no other option but to deny it. I’m interested to know if you apply this way of thinking in other areas of your life and relationships. Do you deny that your parents are your parents because you do not know everything about them? What about your friends? Do you deny them as being your friends because you do not know everything about them? Human beings are mysteries, ones we cannot know everything about but you still claim to know certain human beings and have relationships with them, right? You cannot comprehend everything they’re thinking and everything they’ve done but this is still not an obstacle to them being your parents or your friends. Yet since you do not know everything about them can we conclude you know nothing of your parents or friends, even to the point where you should never talk about them? Pfft

Or maybe, just maybe we can conclude that you have sufficient knowledge of these people which is enough to know them and that when you talk about them and the things they’ve done you do so not because you were born with this knowledge but because it was revealed to you.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

This would be asking God to remove my free will. Why should I do that? And also according to the catholic teaching, this is something that God would NEVER do. Our “free will” is supposed to be respected by God. So this is not a valid option.

This “sound bite” is wearing pretty thin. Not even God can create a married bachelor, or modify the past. Logical contradictions are beyond God’s powers.

He would not do it against your will. That is the understanding. But the probabilities in your example allow the probability of you freely asking him to fix this future.

There is no contradiction, he can, and as a probability would, do what you ask of him; if you say to this mountain be uprooted and planted in the sea etc., or was it a fig tree, I cannot remember. But as far as the christian God is concerned he can do as you ask. So asking him to fix your future is not at all beyond his power. It is just another probability you must consider in your example.

 

[Back2Church]

Ok, I will go back to the post and reply in detail. One preliminary remark is necessary. It is not necessary to quote anyone. If, what you say is valid and rational, you don’t need external confirmation. However, if the argument is not rational, no amount of “expert” opinion will make it rational. In either case it is a waste of your time and the bandwidth.

You quoted a list of dogmas at the onset of this discussion. Was that a waste of time and bandwidth? No, because those are the premises of your argument.

Why, then, do you have a problem with me quoting from the exact same source to help define the very premises you are using to argue with?

Nope, I look at it from the logical deterministic angle. You said that God’s “knowledge” is primary, and it is the causative agent for the existence of reality. Exactly as you quoted Augustine.

As I said, you had the quote out of context. I added the rest of the context so that you could plainly see that you have drawn an incorrect conlusion about the quote.

Next you quoted:

The analogy is incorrect on several counts. First, he confuses the “imagination” with “knowledge”. The artist may have a plan, a desire to produce some artifact, but he does not “know” the outcome until the “fat lady sings”. The other reason why the analogy is incorrect is that the artifact is static object, not an agent with freedom of action.

This is not the first time you have called an analogy bad because it isn’t exactly like the thing it’s being compared to. The point of an analogy is to convey an understanding by way of comaprison. That the two things being compared are not exactly alike does not make the analogy bad. They only need to be alike enough to convey the intended meaning.

This does not explain how the agent’s free will is preserved. By the way, it is NOT the foreknowledge what makes free will impossible. It is what make knowledge possible, the unchangeable nature of the “known” events. You can “know” it because it is unchangeable. Taking an example: I have two **hypothetical **options for breakfast, either cereal (yuck!) or ham-and-eggs (yum!) If God already knows that I will have cereal, and his knowledge determines reality, then my other option is impossible to come true. I cannot change what is part of reality.

I told you it was tricky to wrap your mind around. Keep chewing on it. It’ll “click” eventually.

Just consider an unlimited mind with an infinite power and knowledge that is not only capable of thinking up characters in a story, but is capable of thinking up actual, free-willed, rational beings.

Don’t get too hung up on the idea of foreknowledge. It’s just that God made all of creation all at once, in a sense. It’s not like he wrote a script first and then followed it as He created everything. The knowledge and creation of everything is simultaneous.

Imagine video taping a flower growing from seed to full bloom. I’m sure you’ve seen time-lapse videos of this before. Now imagine looking at every single frame of the video at once. I don’t mean having them all in front of you and looking at the group, or shifting your eyes from one to another. I mean focusing your gaze directly on each individual one simultaneously. Now imagine looking at all of these images simultaneously and planting the seed of the plant in the images at the same time. This might be an effective starting point to begin pondering an eternal creator who can both know your entire life, yet still allow your freedom.

And yes, I know it’s not a perfect analogy. Like I said, it’s just a starting point for thinking about it.

Empty words! If the will itself is caused, then the result of the will is also caused.

Well, you can call all of Catholic doctrine empty words if you want.

This is another “DUH!” moment. “The Fathers point…” come on buddy. Now, if our actions would be the primary causative factors of God’s foreknowledge (God could “peek” somehow into the future and know what we SHALL do) then it would lead to the other problem: “God’s knowledge would be contingent”. You are between a rock and a hard place.

I think I’ve quite clearly spelled out that our actions are not the source of God’s knowledge already.

Do you really think that this is an argument? That “catholics” believe? Catholics also believe that Jesus walked on water. Is such a “belief” considered be a “rational argument”?

No, it’s a clarification. You took a single line from Catholic dogma (the Augustine quote) and jumped to a conclusion about Catholic dogma that does not actually fit with dogma. I’m merely clarifying your understanding of Catholic dogma by presenting the sections of the dogma that are relevant.

Since you never could give an argument how is freedom to act preserved in a deterministic universe, this “disclaimer” carries no weight. Sorry.

You jumped to an incorrect conclusion about Catholic dogma based on a single line from it out of context. You then used this misunderstanding as proof that Catholic dogma was self contradictory. All I did was provide more information from the dogma, as well as a little bit of commentary, in order to show you that your conclusion of what Catholics believe was incorrect. Since, a contradiction cannot be validly produced using false premises, your premise that Catholic dogma claims a belief in a deterministic universe (which is false) invalidates your argument. Therefore, the contradiction you produced is not a valid contradiction.

 

[Back2Church]

I am not assuming that at all. I merely say that any possible answer from God leads to refutation of that “eternal, unchanging now”.

That’ the problem. In order to prove something is contradictory, you absolutely must assume all the premises as true.

I did not say or insinuate this. God is unable to give an answer, which does not “clobber” the assumption of the “eternal, unchanging now”.

Yes, you did insinuate this, because you had God give an answer.

Yes, but this is not part of the premises, it is the result of the exchange.

No, it is God’s incorrect prediction in the second line that leads to the result of the exchange. This is where the argument is broken. You can’t assume God will make such an error if you are trying to prove that He would make such an error.

I suggest you go back to the hypothetical conversation, and analyze it line by line (giving your analysis for every sentence) so we can be on the same wavelength.

I’ve already told you exactly what’s wrong with the argument. Twice now.

I’ve refrained from asking this before, because I didn’t want it to be taken as a personal attack, but I really must ask now. Do you have any formal training in logic?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The problem is that Bageera doesn’t accept our definition of God. He does not accept the existence of that God. He should realize that Our God does not play games. And if He did condescend to be tested He would make sure the tester would loose the game. He would prevent the tester from changing his mind. .

Linus2nd

 

[Bagheera]

That’ the problem. In order to prove something is contradictory, you absolutely must assume all the premises as true.

“PROVISIONALLY” true, not absolutely true! Just like in proving that the square root of two cannot be expressed as a rational number. We provisionally assume the opposite, and reach a contradiction. That is called indirect proving. I have seen the same kind of argument before. It went approximately like this:

1) Premise: “God is perfectly loving and good”.
2) Premise: “A perfectly loving and good entity would never allow needless suffering”.
3) Observation: “We see a lot of needless suffering”
4) Atheist conclusion: “God is not perfectly loving and good”.

5) The rational theist answer would be to enumerate each and every instance of “SEEMINGLY” needless suffering, and give an explanation, why that seemingly needless suffering is actually the optimal method to bring forth some “grater good”. But that was not the case.

6) The ACTUAL theist answer was: “But that cannot be right, since it would contradict your first premise!!!”

You committed the same error. Do you see it now?

Yes, you did insinuate this, because you had God give an answer.

I merely explored the ramifications of the “two possible” answers, which are available for God. And both lead to a destruction of the assumption of that “eternal, unchanging now”.

I’ve refrained from asking this before, because I didn’t want it to be taken as a personal attack, but I really must ask now. Do you have any formal training in logic?

Since I have a PhD in mathematics, computer science and economics, and worked as a math professor in a national university, I think it is fair to say that I do. Not that it matters.

 

[Back2Church]

“PROVISIONALLY” true, not absolutely true! Just like in proving that the square root of two cannot be expressed as a rational number. We provisionally assume the opposite, and reach a contradiction. That is called indirect proving. I have seen the same kind of argument before. It went approximately like this:

1) Premise: “God is perfectly loving and good”.
2) Premise: “A perfectly loving and good entity would never allow needless suffering”.
3) Observation: “We see a lot of needless suffering”
4) Atheist conclusion: “God is not perfectly loving and good”.

5) The rational theist answer would be to enumerate each and every instance of “SEEMINGLY” needless suffering, and give an explanation, why that seemingly needless suffering is actually the optimal method to bring forth some “grater good”. But that was not the case.

6) The ACTUAL theist answer was: “But that cannot be right, since it would contradict your first premise!!!”

You committed the same error. Do you see it now?

You forgot to list the logician’s answer, which would be to point out that your syllogism here fails to mention about God having the actual power to do anything about needless suffering. Yeah, I get the point of the argument and that God’s omnipotence is implied by definition, but details are important and required in these kind of arguments.

Unfortunately you still have no idea what I’m trying to explain to you. I think the problem is that we keep using these hypothetical conversations as arguments and it’s muddling up what you understand to be the premises of the argument. How about you convert your post #182 into a formal argument, similar in form to the one you posted here? Let’s see how you would present it.

Perhaps once you do that, you’ll understand the error you’ve made.

I merely explored the ramifications of the “two possible” answers, which are available for God. And both lead to a destruction of the assumption of that “eternal, unchanging now”.

You explored the ramifications of the two possible answers to a situation in which God made a foolish error. An error that is not in keeping with His proposed nature. It simply isn’t a well formed argument.

Since I have a PhD in mathematics, computer science and economics, and worked as a math professor in a national university, I think it is fair to say that I do. Not that it matters.

So you shouldn’t be having such difficulty with this, then…