What would be your reaction?

[JRKH]

Skeptic: I could not care less about what you think is best for me.

God: Which only further shows how important it is for me to act in your best interest and not just give in to your little whims.

I only care about truth,

God: My dear child…You are not caring for truth - you simply wish try to prove that you are right…even though you are not…

and the truth is that “omniscience is contingent upon keeping it secret”

God: Truly you are a caution…lol…
Suppose instead of revealing your actions to you as you demand, I reveal it to one of the kibitzers. That person, K, declares - “The Lord has spoken to me and told me what the result will be…please proceed so that we may see teh Glory of the Lord”
Now - you see - I have revealed the secret…but not to you…so as to not interfere with your free will.

Peace
James

 

[Bagheera]

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.

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:

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?

The very best answer so far. But you have made a simple error. Infinity is not a problem. Are you familiar with the concept of mathematical induction? You can read it here Just because there are infinitely many steps necessary, the validity of a proof can be established. We do not need to actually “traverse” the infinitely many steps, as long as we can establish the pattern, which is inherited from “n” to “n + 1”. Of course the real God would know that. But I really appreciate the answer, it is refreshing to see something which is different from: “it cannot happen, because…”

 

[anthonymarie]

“God’s knowledge is independent of extra-divine things”, which means God would “know” the outcome even if that outcome is communicated

But there is nothing to say God would be able to “communicate” it to a finite creature within a finite time constraint. Which Dogma says that He could? I can have “knowledge” that I am unable to communicate to a one year old for example. God having knowledge does not imply a necessary ability to communicate it to His creation (are we hitting on the mystery of the Trinity here?).

My previous analogy about standing at the fork in the road is valid. God could know for certain your decision but by intervening He would be creating a logical contradiction. God would not attempt to “say an unsayable thing” anymore than He would attempt to “create an uncreatable object”.

 

[Bagheera]

God: Which only further shows how important it is for me to act in your best interest and not just give in to your little whims.

If I would ever pray, I would utter this simple prayer: “Please Lord, save me from the people who wish to save me from myself…” and I would add: “and consider yourself to be part of that group”.

God: Truly you are a caution…lol…
Suppose instead of revealing your actions to you as you demand, I reveal it to one of the kibitzers. That person, K, declares - “The Lord has spoken to me and told me what the result will be…please proceed so that we may see teh Glory of the Lord”
Now - you see - I have revealed the secret…but not to you…so as to not interfere with your free will.

I have seen this “trick” before. Reveal it to someone else, or write it on a piece of paper hidden in a closed envelope. It does not work. For the purposes of this experiment I only trust myself, no one else. And I do not trust you not pull a fast one and replace that piece of paper with another one, if your prediction would happen to be incorrect. By the way, revealing the assumed result to me would not interfere with my freedom.

 

[Bagheera]

But there is nothing to say God would be able to “communicate” it to a finite creature within a finite time constraint. Which Dogma says that He could? I can have “knowledge” that I am unable to communicate to a one year old for example. God having knowledge does not imply a necessary ability to communicate it to His creation (are we hitting on the mystery of the Trinity here?).

There is nothing problematic about revealing: “you will roll the red die in exactly one minute and the result will be 4”. Oh, and the “trinity” is not a mystery, it is a contradiction.

My previous analogy about standing at the fork in the road is valid. God could know for certain your decision but by intervening He would be creating a logical contradiction. God would not attempt to “say an unsayable thing” anymore than He would attempt to “create an uncreatable object”.

It is not God who would create the contradiction, it is the skeptic who can act contrarian, if he so chooses. So there is no inherent contradiction.

 

[JRKH]

If I would ever pray, I would utter this simple prayer: “Please Lord, save me from the people who wish to save me from myself…” and I would add: “and consider yourself to be part of that group”.

And I’m sure that if you persist in this prayer - God will let you have your way…

I have seen this “trick” before. Reveal it to someone else, or write it on a piece of paper hidden in a closed envelope. It does not work. For the purposes of this experiment I only trust myself, no one else. And I do not trust you not pull a fast one and replace that piece of paper with another one, if your prediction would happen to be incorrect. By the way, revealing the assumed result to me would not interfere with my freedom.

Yes - and we have seen this “trick” before too…A scenario is proposed and when objections are raised…new conditions are added…

With that I will bow out of the discussion. As I said earlier I am not a student of philosophy and I can see that others are engaging you better than I ever could.

Have fun…

Peace
James

 

[anthonymarie]

There is nothing problematic about revealing: “you will roll the red die in exactly one minute and the result will be 4”.

That is your opinion and I respect it. However, It is not derivable from the Dogma you quoted: “God’s knowledge is independent of extra-divine things” and, as of yet, you have mentioned no other that you claim it is derivable from.

Perhaps, if you wouldn’t mind, you could spell out for me, not through a dialogue but more logic book style, how you can derive the statement:

• “God is able to “communicate” His (future) knowledge to a finite creature within a finite time constraint.”

from

*“God’s knowledge is independent of extra-divine things”

 

[Paddy_Walker]

yes, we have seen this before. Ignoring the bit about Dogma, because it isn’t dogma its something that most theologians accept.
and jumping over that to your problem.
Ask God to tell me the number I am thinking of, then tell me, then I will prove him wrong by thinking of another number.
One problem with these types of things is that he knows all the answers. When you picked a number or decided you would throw the dice then he already knew the answer. But you did not know the answer because you don’t know everything, So he can tell you the answer to your question but you then have to change the question to make his answer false. Had you in fact Gods power of knowing everything you would know straight away that he knew what you knew and that you knew his was the correct answer. The problem is only an apparent problem because you are limited and don’t know everything. Once again, had you known everything you would also know that his answer was correct.

 

[Back2Church]

The very best answer so far. But you have made a simple error. Infinity is not a problem. Are you familiar with the concept of mathematical induction? You can read it here Just because there are infinitely many steps necessary, the validity of a proof can be established. We do not need to actually “traverse” the infinitely many steps, as long as we can establish the pattern, which is inherited from “n” to “n + 1”. Of course the real God would know that. But I really appreciate the answer, it is refreshing to see something which is different from: “it cannot happen, because…”

Thanks

I admit I’m unfamiliar with mathematical induction, but I’ve given the wikipedia entry you linked a few reads to try to wrap my mind around it. So far I’m not understanding how this method reveals any error in my reasoning. Perhaps you can point out what I’m missing.

The first thing I see is that this method is used to prove statements for all natural numbers. Forgive my ignorance, but I don’t see how this applies to the hypothetical scenario under discussion. The first step of mathematical induction is to prove the given statement for the first natural number. What are you considering the given statement to be here? “If G predicts X, S performs non-X?” It seems like this method is for purely mathematical functions, yet the infinite process I described earlier has no ties to math other than the fact that there is an infinite quantity of possible actions.

So, I guess my question boils down to how do you prove “If G predicts X, then S performs non-X” for 1? What relationship does 1 have with the premise?

I’ll withhold my other questions for now, as they may be answered with your response to this one.

Again, forgive my ignorance on this. I’m honestly trying to understand how mathematical induction impacts my reasoning.

 

[Bagheera]

So, I guess my question boils down to how do you prove “If G predicts X, then S performs non-X” for 1? What relationship does 1 have with the premise?

It is not a one-to-one correspondence, more like a method to validate a proposition for infinitely many scenarios. The mathematical induction deals with “inheritance” from some value to the next. If there is such inheritance, then one does not need to “traverse” all the possible scenarios to prove that the proposition is applicable for each and every one of them.

In this case we start with a simple setup:

• God “foresees” that I INTEND to perform x[sub]1[/sub] and therefore he predicts x[sub]1[/sub]…
• However, hearing this I will change my mind and now I INTEND to perform some different x[sub]2[/sub]…
• Then God will change his prediction to x[sub]2[/sub]… and so on…
• For any “n”, when I INTEND to perform x[sub]n[/sub], and therefore God predicts this, as soon as I hear this prediction, I change my mind and INTEND to perform x[sub]n+1[/sub]

It is important that we never actually perform the prediction/action scenario. I only INTEND to do something, without actually performing it. The point is that we do not have to actually perform the prediction - action for all the possible values of “n”, since I am free to follow the prediction or counteract it, there is always a action which goes against the prediction.

Just like if we wish to ascertain that 1 + 2 + 3 + … + n = n*(n + 1)/2 for infinitely many “n”-s, we do not have to actually perform the validation for all those infinitely many values. To put it simply, this little “trick” allows us to “grab” infinity and “hold” it in out finite hand.

 

[davidv]

If I would ever pray, I would utter this simple prayer: “Please Lord, save me from the people who wish to save me from myself…” and I would add: “and consider yourself to be part of that group”.

I have seen this “trick” before. Reveal it to someone else, or write it on a piece of paper hidden in a closed envelope. It does not work. For the purposes of this experiment** I only trust myself,** no one else. And I do not trust you not pull a fast one and replace that piece of paper with another one, if your prediction would happen to be incorrect. By the way, revealing the assumed result to me would not interfere with my freedom.

Note the highlighed above. This is the basic problem with your experiment. You, as well as every other human being, are demonstrably untrustworthy. Since God knows you cannot be trusted, he won’t play your game.

 

[Bagheera]

One problem with these types of things is that he knows all the answers. When you picked a number or decided you would throw the dice then he already knew the answer. But you did not know the answer because you don’t know everything,

We are dealing with the Molinist “middle knowledge” here. I do know all the different POSSIBLE outcomes of a die toss. But that is not ALL what God is supposed to know. He is also supposed to know what the ACTUAL outcome IS (not WILL BE, but IS), even when the toss has not happened YET. And of course the verb “IS” is not applicable to the future or to the past.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

We are dealing with the Molinist “middle knowledge” here. I do know all the different POSSIBLE outcomes of a die toss. But that is not ALL what God is supposed to know. He is also supposed to know what the ACTUAL outcome IS (not WILL BE, but IS), even when the toss has not happened YET. And of course the verb “IS” is not applicable to the future or to the past.

Yes he does know the actual outcome, but the thing is you don’t. So you cannot see that his answer is correct. This is not even mentioning the fact that you then change the question to make the answer you couldn’t know false.

Look at it like this;

B, thats you, says to an omniscient God, G;

B: I’m going to toss this dice, you tell me the outcome.
G: O.K. The outcome is three. [This is actually the true outcome had the dice been tossed then]
B: [Says to himself in ignorance of the true outcome] Now I will change the question so that that outcome cannot occur.
G: Now you are asking a new question and you have the answer to it now as well as the answer to your previous question.
B: No. I only asked you one question.
G: No you asked a total of two questions and you have the two answers to them, but because you are not me and cannot know everything you did not see the answer to the first question as I did.

 

[Back2Church]

It is not a one-to-one correspondence, more like a method to validate a proposition for infinitely many scenarios. The mathematical induction deals with “inheritance” from some value to the next. If there is such inheritance, then one does not need to “traverse” all the possible scenarios to prove that the proposition is applicable for each and every one of them.

In this case we start with a simple setup:

• God “foresees” that I INTEND to perform x[sub]1[/sub] and therefore he predicts x[sub]1[/sub]…
• However, hearing this I will change my mind and now I INTEND to perform some different x[sub]2[/sub]…
• Then God will change his prediction to x[sub]2[/sub]… and so on…
• For any “n”, when I INTEND to perform x[sub]n[/sub], and therefore God predicts this, as soon as I hear this prediction, I change my mind and INTEND to perform x[sub]n+1[/sub]

It is important that we never actually perform the prediction/action scenario. I only INTEND to do something, without actually performing it. The point is that we do not have to actually perform the prediction - action for all the possible values of “n”, since I am free to follow the prediction or counteract it, there is always a action which goes against the prediction.

Just like if we wish to ascertain that 1 + 2 + 3 + … + n = n*(n + 1)/2 for infinitely many “n”-s, we do not have to actually perform the validation for all those infinitely many values. To put it simply, this little “trick” allows us to “grab” infinity and “hold” it in out finite hand.

Ahh, I get it now. Thanks for breaking it down like that for me.

I guess my question now is about inheritance. Namely in determining if there is inheritance and if so, what exactly is that inheritance.

If, in the first instance of this prediction/intention cycle, G predicts X, are we supposing that S will always choose to do Y instead, in a deterministic fashion? I don’t mean if we keep going forward in the cycle, I’m speaking only of the very first prediction only.

Let’s imagine in your scenario that God predicts you will roll snake eyes with the red and blue dice, so you decide to only roll the yellow die instead. After you make your decision, God hits a reset button on the scenario, putting everything back exactly the same it was. I don’t mean going back in time to repeat the scenario, but simply resetting the scenario back to “factory defaults” to redo the scenario. You wouldn’t be aware of any of this. The second go at this scenario would just be the first.

So in this second iteration, since all things are set back exactly as they were, you’re back to intending on rolling the red and blue dice and they are going to roll snake eyes, just as in the first iteration God tells you his prediction, just as before (only you have no knowledge of this previous iteration). Will you again choose to roll only the yellow die? If we repeat this process over and over again, will you always choose the yellow die? Or will you choose different options each time?

I’m simply trying to figure out if you see each new intention being determined by the the prediction preceding it, or if each new intention has nothing to do with the prediction other than the fact that it won’t copy the prediction.

If it’s not determined, then I’m not sure I see any actual inheritance as needed in the mathematical induction process.

What I mean is that if God predicts x[sub]1[/sub], then you change your mind to x[sub]2[/sub], so he predicts x[sub]2[/sub] and you change your mind to x[sub]3[/sub], etc. etc., then I can see the inheritance. One iteration follows another and you can plop in any number and get the correct information. The results of x[sub]6[/sub] will always be x[sub]6[/sub] and the results of x[sub]982346752307456[/sub] will always be x[sub]982346752307456[/sub]. The results of these cannot change. They are static; locked in to those iterations. But this seems like a deterministic view, which in no way fits with Catholic dogma. In order to show that Catholic dogma is logically inconsistent, we cannot use a premise that is against Catholic dogma. So we have to throw this approach out.

That means we are left with each iteration being its own unique instance of the experiment. You are free to choose different options in each iteration, regardless of what the prediction was. There is no inheritance, therefore mathematical induction cannot be applied. So I think my original reasoning still stands.

Now I’ll caveat all of this with the admittance that I may have a misconception of what you mean by inheritance in this context, so you’ll have to comment on that. But regardless of the inheritance definition, I still believe being able to apply mathematical induction to this hypothetical scenario does turn the possibility/intention chain into something deterministic, which is not Catholic dogma and therefore cannot be used to prove inconsistency within Catholic dogma.

 

[Linux]

Let’s suppose that one of the (de fide) dogmas, which are taught “infallibly” by the church is proven to be incorrect. “Proven” in this case means that it is logically impossible. What would be your reaction? (Later I will give an actual example, but for the time being, just consider the hypothetical scenario.)

As you can see from many of the posts, some Catholics on this forum have a weak and threatened faith and are not capable of considering hypothetical’s unless it reflects positively on what they believe because their motivations for belief is purely emotional in the first place. Its a waste of time and energy.

As for my reaction. If it is indeed possible for papal infallibility to be proven false and it happened one day that such was the case, then i could no-longer take the Catholic faith seriously. I would leave the church.

Do you know of a case where it is evident that the Pope has spoken infallibly and was wrong?

If you have such evidence, i will consider it.

 

[polytropos]

Not one word has been said about “omnipotence”.

The concept of “knowing the future” is where the problem lies.

The problem I think you run into is that knowing the future is not the problem. God, in your experiment, can know what you will do. What causes the problem is communicating the future to someone who intends to contradict it. As such, a claim about omnipotence is needed to obtain your contradiction; there is no contradiction obtained with respect to God’s omniscience if God can know the future but simply not communicate it to you.

But then the experiment falls apart when you include omnipotence, since it is logically impossible for you to do what God to reveals you will do (assuming that you are right in saying that you will remain firm in your intention to defy God).

 

[polytropos]

• God “foresees” that I INTEND to perform x[sub]1[/sub] and therefore he predicts x[sub]1[/sub]…
• However, hearing this I will change my mind and now I INTEND to perform some different x[sub]2[/sub]…
• Then God will change his prediction to x[sub]2[/sub]… and so on…
• For any “n”, when I INTEND to perform x[sub]n[/sub], and therefore God predicts this, as soon as I hear this prediction, I change my mind and INTEND to perform x[sub]n+1[/sub]

Can you explain the clause “God will change his prediction”? The thought experiment seems to presuppose that God changes. God is not a fortuneteller (which is part of the reason why the idea of your having a dialogue with him, in which his contingency is essentially assumed, is problematic).

What you seem to be proving is that, when God’s revealing X would lead to not-X (which God would know), God logically cannot reveal X. (Although, when God knows that revealing X is still consistent with X, as when Jesus revealed that he would be betrayed, God can reveal X.)

 

[anthonymarie]

Can you explain the clause “God will change his prediction”? The thought experiment seems to presuppose that God changes. God is not a fortuneteller (which is part of the reason why the idea of your having a dialogue with him, in which his contingency is essentially assumed, is problematic).

What you seem to be proving is that, when God’s revealing X would lead to not-X (which God would know), God logically cannot reveal X. (Although, when God knows that revealing X is still consistent with X, as when Jesus revealed that he would be betrayed, God can reveal X.)

 

[tdgesq]

It is not a one-to-one correspondence, more like a method to validate a proposition for infinitely many scenarios. The mathematical induction deals with “inheritance” from some value to the next. If there is such inheritance, then one does not need to “traverse” all the possible scenarios to prove that the proposition is applicable for each and every one of them.

In this case we start with a simple setup:

• God “foresees” that I INTEND to perform x[sub]1[/sub] and therefore he predicts x[sub]1[/sub]…
• However, hearing this I will change my mind and now I INTEND to perform some different x[sub]2[/sub]…
• Then God will change his prediction to x[sub]2[/sub]… and so on…
• For any “n”, when I INTEND to perform x[sub]n[/sub], and therefore God predicts this, as soon as I hear this prediction, I change my mind and INTEND to perform x[sub]n+1[/sub]

It is important that we never actually perform the prediction/action scenario. I only INTEND to do something, without actually performing it. The point is that we do not have to actually perform the prediction - action for all the possible values of “n”, since I am free to follow the prediction or counteract it, there is always a action which goes against the prediction.

Just like if we wish to ascertain that 1 + 2 + 3 + … + n = n*(n + 1)/2 for infinitely many “n”-s, we do not have to actually perform the validation for all those infinitely many values. To put it simply, this little “trick” allows us to “grab” infinity and “hold” it in out finite hand.

There was a thread here recently started by a poster name Tyrion that is remarkably similar to this argument: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10685895&postcount=1

His argument was thoroughly refuted (an embarrassing display of protracted ownage) by theists and non-theists alike; demonstrating no understanding of A and B theories of time, refusing to recognize that Catholics do not hold that God’s omnipotence includes contradictory actions, and that (really the most simple objection) that God is not required to engage in prediction with his human interlocutor.

I think for the time being I’ll stick with the last objection. God isn’t required to engage in the prediction game with Tyrion . . . I mean Bagheera. Theory refuted, again.

 

[ColdComfort]

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.

I’m not reading past this post so if someone has address this issue I apologize: If God choses to keep secret His knowlegde of future choices you make how does that make His knowledge contingent on something extra-divine? It doesn’t. It is His will to reveal.

Ever thought of making your threads a bit shorter?