T
- Status
C
carn
Guest
You misunderstand, i did not mean to suggest G tinkers with free will of S. I meant that upon G saying, what S will do, S realizes that doing anything else would be immoral (because Gods words are not only true but also good, hence not throwing dice at specified time is evil) and hence S does as G says on his own choice,since S strives to act morally.
You already tried to counter that possibility, but
then the whole scenario falls apart if it starts with “S comes into Gs presence with unwavering intent to act evil and asks …” because thats just like the stone to heavy to lift, its a self-contradicting scenario and therefore cannot prove anything.
You have to start with “S, a Saint, comes into Gs presence and …” if you want to have any attempt at creating a contradiction via such a S talks with G scenario.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Such insight into God’s knowledge implies supernatural knowledge. It overlooks the fact that all descriptions of the Deity are analogous.
B
Beryllos
Guest
You have made certain assumptions which lead to a logical inconsistency. Therefore, I suspect, one of your assumptions is incorrect. I am guessing that the incorrect assumption is that God would tell the skeptic what he knows. God knows the truth, but is not bound to tell it.
We can make up lots of stories in which a fictitious God proves that he is not omniscient, not omnipotent, or even non-existent. Here is a short example:
B
Bagheera
Guest
It would need a full and total brainwashing (not just a minor “tinkering”) performed by God for me to accept that it is “evil” to roll the blue die when God predicts the rolling of the red and green dice. I specifically chose a morally neutral example. By the way, I have absolutely no desire to act according to what you call a “moral behavior”.
Suppose that God would predict that in his version of future I will select some specific numbers and that putting them on a lottery ticket I will win the Powerball. In this case I would comply. However, if God would predict that choosing a specific route to my destination, one of my tires would blow up and my car would run into a group of children, then I would definitely stay at home, and act contrarian.
But all of these are irrelevant. The point is that “knowledge of the future” (if such a ridiculous thing would be possible) is contingent upon keeping that knowledge “secret” - which invalidates dawg-mah #33…
B
Bagheera
Guest
As you could see, he never revealed the outcome in the dialog. The point is that IF he did, then this revelation would allow the prediction to be invalidated. The problem is the dogma #33, which states that God’s knowledge is independent / unconditional, and the proof shows that it is contingent upon the secrecy.
It is not God’s actual attributes (whatever they might be) are in question. Rather the alleged attributes presented in the dogmas are logically inconsistent.
P
Paddy_Walker
Guest
We’ve had this thread before. It ended poorly, I think. Much frustration.Since there was no disagreement about the link to the divine attributes as described in the dogmas, we can go on.
…
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.
- God’s knowledge is independent of extra-divine things
When you ask God about the dice you are actually standing in God, living in him. He has total knowledge of you and the dice - because there is nothing else besides God. All knowledge of everything comes from him and because of him.
But I don’t find this one, number 33, in your exact wording, listed among the Attributes or Qualities of God. Also there is no Theological Grades of Certainty attached to this line of your post.
- God knows all that is merely possible by the knowledge of simple intelligence (scientia simplicis intelligentiae). (De fide.)
- God knows all real things in the past, the present and the future (Scientia visionis). (De fide.)
- By knowledge of vision (scientia visionis) God also foresees the free acts of the rational creatures with infallible certainty. (De fide.)
- God also knows the conditioned future free actions with infallible certainty.** (Sent. communis)**
- “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”
by Ludwig Ott.
- The highest degree of certainty appertains to the immediately revealed truths. The belief due to them is based on the authority of God Revealing (fides divina), and if the Church, through its teaching, vouches for the fact it a truth is contained in Revelation, one’s certainty is then also based on the authority of the Infallible Teaching Authority of the Church (fides catholica). If Truths are defined by a solemn judgment of faith (definition) of the Pope or of a General Council, they are “de fide definita.”
- Catholic truths or Church doctrines, on which the infallible Teaching Authority of the Church has finally decided, are to be accepted with a faith which is based on the sole authority of the Church (fides ecclesiastica). These truths are as infallibly certain as dogmas proper.
- A Teaching proximate to Faith (sententia fidei proxima) is a doctrine, which is regarded by theologians generally as a truth of Revelation, but which has not yet been finally promulgated as such by the Church.
- A Teaching pertaining to the Faith, i.e., theologically certain (sententia ad fidem pertinens, i.e., theologice certa) is a doctrine, on which the Teaching Authority of the Church has not yet finally pronounced, but whose truth is guaranteed by its intrinsic connection with the doctrine of revelation (theological conclusions).
- Common Teaching (sententia communis) is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally.
- Theological opinions of lesser grades of certainty are called probable, more probable, well-founded (sententia probabilis, probabilior, bene fundata). Those which are regarded as being in agreement with the consciousness of Faith of the Church are called pious opinions (sententia pia). The least degree of certainty is possessed by the tolerated opinion (opinio tolerata), which is only weakly founded, but which is tolerated by the Church.
Nevertheless normally they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See (assensus internus supernaturalis, assensus religiosus). The so-called “silentium obsequiosum,” that is “reverent silence,” does not generally suffice. By way of exception, the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conviction that the decision rests on an error.
It appears that number 38 is; 5. Common Teaching (sententia communis) is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally
A generally accepted doctrine, belonging to the field of public opinion, but not a Dogma proper.
B
Bagheera
Guest
Do the writings of Ludwig Ott belong to the unquestionable, infallible revelations?
It sounds very strange that there are “levels” of dogmas, and some dogmas are more “dogmatic” than others. Can one become a “cafeteria catholic” and pick and choose which dogmas to accept and which ones to reject?
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others???
Of course there is also dogma #15: “God is absolutely simple (De Fide)”. Which means that God’s essence cannot be separated from God’s knowledge. Since God’s knowledge of everything is contingent upon the reality of what he knows (in other words God knows our actions because we do those actions) therefore God’s essence is also contingent.
A
anthonymarie
Guest
You are asking God to create a logical impossibility. In a sense, this is simply a cleverly disguised version of “if God is all powerful can He make 2 + 2 = 5”? No.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).
So, kibitzers, now you have your logical inconsistency among the dogmas. It is up you what to do with it.
- God’s knowledge is independent of extra-divine things
- God knows all that is merely possible by the knowledge of simple intelligence (scientia simplicis intelligentiae). (De fide.)
- God knows all real things in the past, the present and the future (Scientia visionis). (De fide.)
- By knowledge of vision (scientia visionis) God also foresees the free acts of the rational creatures with infallible certainty. (De fide.)
- God also knows the conditioned future free actions with infallible certainty (Scientia futuribilium). (Sent. communis.)
S: Hi there G.
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.
If you stand at a fork in the road and I know you intend to turn left, but you ask me which way you will go so you can contradict me, I will decline to answer since by answering you will change your intention and I will have lied. Telling the truth in that situation is impossible, knowing the outcome is not.
You have just re-proved an already known fact that God cannot contradict His own nature. That is all.
P
Paddy_Walker
Guest
This particular writing of Ludwig Otto simply explains the Churches system of Theological Grades of Certainty.
The Grades of Certainty is self-explanatory I think. Some things are explicitly stated in the Scriptures and because of that are Dogma. You cannot argue with an explicit revealed truth.
Other things are implied and others are reasoned.
And as the Theological Grades of Certainty says;
5. Common Teaching (sententia communis) is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally.
Which would mean that some Catholic theologians may not accept it and they are not excommunicated or persecuted or bothered in any way over it because it belongs to the field of free opinions, (sententia communis) Common Teaching.
So you don’t chose which to accept or reject, you simply look at the Theological Grade of Certainty for that particular Dogma or Doctrine and do what it says.
Heres what ‘God is Simple’ means;
God is Simple
Catholic Teaching:
God is not composed or divisible by any physical or metaphysical means. Simplicity of God refers to the fact that he has no parts. The simplicity teaching extends to the entire nature of God. His substance, nature, and very being is that of utter simplicity. The properties usually attributed to God such as omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence do not contradict the teaching of simplicity because each property is a different way of looking at the infinite active being of God from a limited perspective. One consequence of this teaching is the fact that since God is simple, he must be a pure spirit.
Definition of the Dogma:
The dogma of simplicity follows from the teachings of the 4th Lateran Council and the first Vatican Council which stated that God is an absolutely simple substance or nature. The basis of this De Fide dogma can be found within the gospel of John, “God is a spirit” (John 4:24).
Heresies which reject or confuse this teaching:
Anthropomorphism (the heresy of believing God has a body) violates the dogma of simplicity. Anthropomorphism, latent in Mormonism, paganism and polytheism fails to consider the fact that God exists in complete and total actuality. Since God has not unrealized potentiality in the metaphysical sense, he cannot possibly have parts or a body.
Additionally, pantheism, New Age religions and some of the more naiveté Christian sects tend to view God as a diffuse metaphysical being that permeates nature and gives nature a certain metaphysical share in divinity. Such a doctrinal stance violates the teaching of God’s simplicity by assuming that nature has a metaphysical share in God’s nature. The creations of God can play no part in his metaphysical being without violating his simplicity.
Philosophical Proof from St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica
Primary Argument:
P1. Every composite must have potentiality and actuality
P2. God is entirely actual.
C1. God is not composite and therefore simple.
Code:
Objections:Reply: It is of the essence of a thing to be composite. A parallel cannot be drawn in this fashion between the creator and the created because God’s essence is existence. A created thing’s existence is different from the created thing’s essence. Hence simplicity cannot be attributed to a created thing as it can to God whose nature is that of utter existence.
Any thing that is composite is better than something that is simple (as a hand is to man). Since God is of the hightest order he must be composite rather than simple.
Reply: The statement that composites are better than simplicity is true only for created beings because they cannot be altogether simple. Therefore we must look for perfection in many things. However, perfection of a divine goodness is found in one simple thing (God).
T
tonyrey
Guest
Irrefutable!
B
Bob_Crowley
Guest
It doesn’t disprove the dogmas, because the situation you speak about will never arise. At no time is God going to allow Himself to be put into a situation such as the one you have just hypothesised.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).
So, kibitzers, now you have your logical inconsistency among the dogmas. It is up you what to do with it.
- God’s knowledge is independent of extra-divine things
- God knows all that is merely possible by the knowledge of simple intelligence (scientia simplicis intelligentiae). (De fide.)
- God knows all real things in the past, the present and the future (Scientia visionis). (De fide.)
- By knowledge of vision (scientia visionis) God also foresees the free acts of the rational creatures with infallible certainty. (De fide.)
- God also knows the conditioned future free actions with infallible certainty (Scientia futuribilium). (Sent. communis.)
S: Hi there G.
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.
As such, God therefore retains the ability to foresee all choices, since He does not enter into dialogue of the sort above.
If He did, He would be allowing one of His creatures, namely you, to call the shots, and He will not allow that to happen.
And even if He did deign to do so, all He’d have to do is change the colour of the dice as you moved them, and the original result would still apply. He would be perfectly entitled to do so since He’s God. You might want to argue about the ethics of doing so, but Ethics is just a tool in God’s hands.
J
JRKH
Guest
Well I think that your little conversation is quite interesting…
However I think that the problem comes in at about line number 10 where you have God say “I can’t”…Not too likely that He would say that…I suggest that the conversation might take bit of a different turn from that point. Something like…
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: Actually – No I don’t need to approve the assertion.
S: Don’t you want me to believe and accept you?
G: Sure I do
S: Well then why won’t you give me the proof I ask?
G: Well frankly because it would not be good for you but - What proof do you want? (of course God already knows)
S: Simple. Just tell me the result.
G: I will not tell you that.
S: Why not? You have the knowledge and you can share it, can’t you?
G: Yes I do have the knowledge…and I have other knowledge as well.
S: Such as……
G: Well such as – here in your time frame (post number) 31 you are asking to know the future. Then in time frame 39 you admit that your desires are not sincere and that your intent is to try to act contrary…trying to disprove something about Me. Since I know this and that proceeding would be bad for your spiritual health…I choose not to do this because I Love you.
Then G concludes….
Now my dear child, this should be sufficient demonstration to you how perfect my knowledge is. Not only that I know what your intent is, but also that I know what is best for you.
I suggest that you read a bit of the Gospels and see how often the Jews posed various “tricks” to my Son. Look at His answers. See how careful and true and loving they are.
See how He calls them out of their “web” of worldly thought and into deeper and more profound truths.
No my dear child…This little “trick” of yours is of no benefit to you or to the kibitzers looking over your shoulder. I know this and in the deepest part of your heart you know it too.
Go now in peace…and do keep pondering and asking your questions…and I will be there to try to help guide you.
So here God has given the best and most Loving answer possible to the skeptic’s petition (prayer)…
I don’t know how philosophically sound the above is - - I am no student of philosophy - - But I do know that God does not always answer our prayers in the way we expect and, the scenario proposed (God prove yourself with a sign) IS a prayer…
Peace
James
However I think that the problem comes in at about line number 10 where you have God say “I can’t”…Not too likely that He would say that…I suggest that the conversation might take bit of a different turn from that point. Something like…
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: Actually – No I don’t need to approve the assertion.
S: Don’t you want me to believe and accept you?
G: Sure I do
S: Well then why won’t you give me the proof I ask?
G: Well frankly because it would not be good for you but - What proof do you want? (of course God already knows)
S: Simple. Just tell me the result.
G: I will not tell you that.
S: Why not? You have the knowledge and you can share it, can’t you?
G: Yes I do have the knowledge…and I have other knowledge as well.
S: Such as……
G: Well such as – here in your time frame (post number) 31 you are asking to know the future. Then in time frame 39 you admit that your desires are not sincere and that your intent is to try to act contrary…trying to disprove something about Me. Since I know this and that proceeding would be bad for your spiritual health…I choose not to do this because I Love you.
Then G concludes….
Now my dear child, this should be sufficient demonstration to you how perfect my knowledge is. Not only that I know what your intent is, but also that I know what is best for you.
I suggest that you read a bit of the Gospels and see how often the Jews posed various “tricks” to my Son. Look at His answers. See how careful and true and loving they are.
See how He calls them out of their “web” of worldly thought and into deeper and more profound truths.
No my dear child…This little “trick” of yours is of no benefit to you or to the kibitzers looking over your shoulder. I know this and in the deepest part of your heart you know it too.
Go now in peace…and do keep pondering and asking your questions…and I will be there to try to help guide you.
So here God has given the best and most Loving answer possible to the skeptic’s petition (prayer)…
I don’t know how philosophically sound the above is - - I am no student of philosophy - - But I do know that God does not always answer our prayers in the way we expect and, the scenario proposed (God prove yourself with a sign) IS a prayer…
Peace
James
C
carn
Guest
JRKH and anthonymarie better describe what i said above.
B
Bagheera
Guest
Not one word has been said about “omnipotence”. Try again.
Welcome to God, the cheater…
B
Bagheera
Guest
Skeptic: Actually, no. You declined the demonstration.
Skeptic: I could not care less about what you think is best for me. I only care about truth, and the truth is that “omniscience is contingent upon keeping it secret”. (And I do not care about the nanny-state either.
)Skeptic: My heart only pumps blood.
Is this what you have in mind?
C
carn
Guest
No, the demonstration is impossible, just like its not possible to correctly calculate 2+2 and arrive at 5 (assuming normal math).Skeptic: Actually, no. You declined the demonstration.
A
anthonymarie
Guest
Hence the term “cleverly disguised”, I never meant that you had done it on purpose by the way, I apologise if it sounded like a snide remark, I meant that you had fallen into a trap that many do: assuming that God is even able to enter into discussion in the first instance is an unwarrented assumption in this case.
But you seem to have chosen to ignore the body of what I said and merely quote the topic sentence. To tell the truth in this scenario is a logical impossibility whether you are man, machine or God. For this to contradict a Dogma you would have to show:
a) Catholic Dogma implied God should be able to overcome a logical impossibility
or
b) Catholic Dogma implied God should be able to “communicate” the answer to any question about the future, within time constraints, that is put to Him, rather than just “knowing” the answer.
So far you have not done this.
B
Back2Church
Guest
How fun! I once used a similar argument against physical determinism. My intro to philosophy professor introduced us to the concept of physical determinism, and rather than using Laplace’s demon, he described a massive super computer that kept track of every particle in existence. This computer also knows all the laws of nature and can therefore predict the state of all particles at any time in the future, thus showing that the future is just as set in stone as the past.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.
My first thought was very similar to yours. I asked, “What if I went to this super computer and got a printout of what I would do tomorrow, and then did something else?” Obviously the computer would have predicted my intended actions, but because of the act of me looking at whatever my future would be, with the intent of doing something else, the computer would get stuck in an infinite loop trying to determine a future that changes once it is revealed to me.
What you present is a fun thought experiment, but it dosn’t break the consistency of dogma. Why not? Because God is infinite. With physical determinism, there is only one possible future, so a thought experiment like this can definitely throw a monkey wrench into the idea. But with God, there is no such limit. Consider your hypothetical encounter with God once again, only allow me to provide an alternate ending.
I’ll start with the majority of your script:
At this point, I’ll pick up with my alternate ending:S: Hi there G.
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: Sure, but you’re not going to like it.
S: Why not?
G: Because whatever result I reveal to you, you will purposefully contradict.
S: That’s the idea.
G: This means there are an infinite number of possible conditioned actions. If I tell you result X, you perform result Y. If I tell you that under the condition of being told X, the actual result is Y, then you will perform result Z. This can go on forever. I have no problem seeing these infinite possibilities. In fact, I’m looking at them right now. I can even begin revealing them to you, but as there is no end to the possibilities, you would spend the rest of your life listening to these possibilities and there would still be infinitely more possibilities you wouldn’t have had a chance to hear. You could even be with me in eternity and never hear the end of all of your possible conditioned actions for this little test.
S: Oh… Hmm.
G: Shall I begin?
S: Can I just get next week’s winning lotto numbers instead?
B
Bagheera
Guest
The concept of “knowing the future” is where the problem lies.
Since the future has not happened, it is still changeable - unlike the past, which cannot be changed. It does not matter if God is part of our time-frame or “sees” it from the outside. There is nothing to be seen in the “future”. There are possibilities, of course. But which possibility will turn into actuality is contingent upon the action of the Skeptic. As long as the free will of the Skeptic is not interfered with, he is free to choose to conform with the revelation or go against it.
Of course there is a problem here, but not in the setup of the experiment, rather in the underlying assumption that the future is “knowable”. The experiment simply shows the contradiction. You should not intend to shoot the messenger.
It is the scenario “b)” which is the logical corollary of dogma #33. It says that “God’s knowledge is independent of extra-divine things”, which means God would “know” the outcome even if that outcome is communicated. And obviously in this case God cannot know the answer, since it is constantly “shifting” based upon the revelation. We have a “game” here of “who-can-outwit-whom”, and since the revelation comes first and the actual experiment comes later, it is the second person (the Skeptic) who has the upper hand. There is no “set” answer, and the hypothetical “revelation” of the possible but un-fixed outcome simply reveals this fact.
- Status