What would be your reaction?

[Bagheera]

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]

This is the point where the conversation stops. This “God” of yours cannot even speak proper English much less present a coherent scenario. The correct second sentence should be: “This WOULD BE actually the true outcome had the dice already been tossed”. Of course, if the dice had already been tossed, there would be no need for a “prediction”, all we had to do is loot at the result. However the dice is still in my hand, it has not been tossed YET. Therefore the “toss” which has not happened, only has potential outcomes, but not an actual outcome. To confuse the (many) potential outcomes with the (one and only) actual outcome is a very serious error. I have no omniscience at all, but I still know that potential outcomes are a number from one to six, or the dice lands on its edge, or it lands on one of the corners or it does not land at all, since someone snatches it in mid-air…

But until the dice actually lands there is no actual outcome.

 

[dshix]

I’ve seen this thread arise on CAF and other forums multiple times. In each occasion, the “logical,” “enlightened,” “empirical” atheist comes in and tries to play games with the posters’ minds.

It doesn’t work, OP. You’ve tried to put God into a box; He just doesn’t work that way. If you think the all-powerful Creator of the universe is going to play mind games with ants like us, you’ve got a lot to learn about His nature.

I don’t need to continue, because other posters have already said the main refutations of this mind-trick.

I’ll pray for the enlightenment of your mind and soul, Bagheera, and I hope you have a breakthrough in understanding before you make another account and play more mind games to troll CAF.

 

[Bagheera]

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

You are most welcome.

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 have absolutely no idea what this “reset” button would be. There is no “undo” or “reset” buttons in reality. I really wish there would be.

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.

It is not “fully” determined, it is merely influenced.

I am not sure what your point is. Only one toss is needed. God declares that in his “reality” the toss already occurred, it was the red dice, and the outcome is three. To “prove” it, he presents a Polaroid picture of the table, showing the red dice and the outcome. However, I have no tossed anything yet. I am looking at his picture. Then I make a decision, and pick up the green dice and toss it. Now, what does the Polaroid picture show? Still the red die? Or the green one? If it shows the red dice, it is obviously not showing the actual outcome. If it shows the green one, the God performed a “cheating miracle”, by adjusting the picture to the reality.

The real problem is the law of non-contradiction. There is one reality. In the reality the toss has not happened yet. However God maintains that it has. That is a contradiction. The dice cannot be “tossed” and “not tossed” at the same time in the same respect. There is only one respect here - reality. It does not matter that there are two observers. Reality is NOT determined by the observer. A train is still approaching the station or it has arrived. It cannot happen that for one observer it is still in motion and for the other one it is already stationary.

 

[davidv]

You are most welcome.

I have absolutely no idea what this “reset” button would be. There is no “undo” or “reset” buttons in reality. I really wish there would be.

It is not “fully” determined, it is merely influenced.

I am not sure what your point is. Only one toss is needed. God declares that in his “reality”

As you declare below, there is only one reality. There is no "his “reality”.

the toss already occurred

No it hasn’t.

, it was the red dice, and the outcome is three. To “prove” it, he presents a Polaroid picture of the table, showing the red dice and the outcome. However, I have no tossed anything yet. I am looking at his picture. Then I make a decision, and pick up the green dice and toss it. Now, what does the Polaroid picture show? Still the red die? Or the green one? If it shows the red dice, it is obviously not showing the actual outcome. If it shows the green one, the God performed a “cheating miracle”, by adjusting the picture to the reality.

What if He doesn’t agree to your method of proof?

The real problem is the law of non-contradiction. There is one reality. In the reality the toss has not happened yet. However God maintains that it has.

This is a strawman.

That is a contradiction.

No it isn’t as it is based on faulty logic.

The dice cannot be “tossed” and “not tossed” at the same time in the same respect. There is only one respect here - reality. It does not matter that there are two observers.

Proving that you don’t have clue about how a being not constrained by time is able to observe things.

Reality is NOT determined by the observer.

Agreed.

A train is still approaching the station or it has arrived. It cannot happen that for one observer it is still in motion and for the other one it is already stationary.

Another strawman. How do you know how God sees the situation?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

There is no “earth shattering revelation”. therefore there is no point to this thread.

Right because God does not throw dice or play hypothetical games. But more than that, " …thou shalt not tempt the lord your God…" What God would do in this case is explain to the " wise guy " that his choice is a mere possibility until he actually throws the dice. So there is no dependence on a human act. And, believe me, if God tells him which dice he will throw, he will throw it, God will make sure he does.

However much of God’s knowledge is dependent on human acts. He knows for example who will be saved and who will be lost, which is determined by our human acts.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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

1. God’s knowledge is independent of extra-divine things

This is your first error. God’s knowledge comes from his own essence. He knows extra-divine things, not in dependence on them being carried out, simply because he knows what will happen. He also knows what infallibly follows.

1. God knows all that is merely possible by the knowledge of simple intelligence (scientia simplicis intelligentiae). (De fide.)
2. God knows all real things in the past, the present and the future (Scientia visionis). (De fide.)
3. By knowledge of vision (scientia visionis) God also foresees the free acts of the rational creatures with infallible certainty. (De fide.)
4. God also knows the conditioned future free actions with infallible certainty (Scientia futuribilium). (Sent. communis.)

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

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

You can tell Satan to come back with a better argument. You see God does not play games, hypothetical or other wise. “…you shalt not tempt the Lord your God…” If God should choose to play your silly game, you will not change your mind. God will see to it that you don’t. So the whole game is a farce. God will not allow you or anyone else make him appear the fool. You are engaged in a very dangerous game. For the sake of your own soul I urge you to stop it.

Linus2nd

 

[Paddy_Walker]

This is the point where the conversation stops. This “God” of yours cannot even speak proper English much less present a coherent scenario. The correct second sentence should be: “This WOULD BE actually the true outcome had the dice already been tossed”.

No, it is proper english. You had asked him for an answer before you threw the dice. So here he gives you the true answer. 3.

Of course, if the dice had already been tossed, there would be no need for a “prediction”, all we had to do is loot at the result. However the dice is still in my hand, it has not been tossed YET.

But it has been tossed. As soon as you asked the question the die was cast. Even if you knew nothing about it.

Therefore the “toss” which has not happened, only has potential outcomes, but not an actual outcome. To confuse the (many) potential outcomes with the (one and only) actual outcome is a very serious error.

There are no more potential outcomes once you have asked the question. There is no error here. The future is the future.

I have no omniscience at all, but I still know that potential outcomes are a number from one to six, or the dice lands on its edge, or it lands on one of the corners or it does not land at all, since someone snatches it in mid-air…

But until the dice actually lands there is no actual outcome.

I’m glad you recognize that you don’t know everything because when you ask an omniscient being for the answer to a question you almost certainly will not understand the answer until it has happened.

 

[tdgesq]

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.

It really is that simple, just like last time this identical issue came up.

 

[Back2Church]

I have absolutely no idea what this “reset” button would be. There is no “undo” or “reset” buttons in reality. I really wish there would be.

It’s a hypothetical button, kind of like this whole discussion.

I guess I could put another way that makes more sense. Imagine that God makes duplications of the universe right at the beginning of your test. Every particle, the firings of every neuron in your brain, everything about reality is duplicated a few hundred million times. Multiple instances of the same reality.

My question is if you believe your test will have the same results in all instances, or will the results vary. Will x[sub]242598[/sub] have the same result in all instances? Or could the result of x[sub]242598[/sub] end up being different from instance to instance, depending on your choices?

 

[tonyrey]

It really is that simple, just like last time this identical issue came up.

The question presupposes that God proposes man disposes! In other words it is absurd…

 

[Bagheera]

I guess I could put another way that makes more sense. Imagine that God makes duplications of the universe right at the beginning of your test. Every particle, the firings of every neuron in your brain, everything about reality is duplicated a few hundred million times. Multiple instances of the same reality.

My question is if you believe your test will have the same results in all instances, or will the results vary. Will x[sub]242598[/sub] have the same result in all instances? Or could the result of x[sub]242598[/sub] end up being different from instance to instance, depending on your choices?

It will vary, if we have true, libertarian free will. Our decisions are influenced but not determined by the circumstances.

There are two scenarios here, which are the mirror images of each other.

One is the hypothetical time travel into the past, which leads to the grandfather paradox. The traveler goes back to the past, and kills his grandfather in his infancy. Therefore his grandfather will not sire one of his parents, and thus he will never be born, and such cannot travel back to the past, and cannot kill his grandfather… and therefore he will be born… etc…

The other one is the knowledge of the future. If you know the future, you have the power to act differently, therefore the future will be altered, and as such you cannot know it.

Both lead to the same type of paradox. Neither is possible.

There are a few people who keep talking about God being outside of time, as if that would make any difference. Suppose you go to a theater play, and see a commedia del arte performance. You are outside the “time” of the play. You may even shout in, or throw a smoke-grenade in and thus disrupt the play. But you cannot know the end of the play until it actually rolls around. The players have free will, there is no predetermined script.

As long as we have the power to act freely, no outside observer can know the outcome, until it actually happens.

 

[Bagheera]

But it has been tossed. As soon as you asked the question the die was cast. Even if you knew nothing about it.

Sorry, this leads nowhere. The dice are IN my hand. I have the freedom to choose which one (or which ones) to cast, if any. Until I decide to make the toss, there is no actual outcome. If you cannot see this, there is no reason to continue.

 

[tonyrey]

The result of presumption - which is evident in his belief that his analysis of Omnipotence and Omnipotence is infallible… despite evidence to the contrary.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

Sorry, this leads nowhere. The dice are IN my hand. I have the freedom to choose which one (or which ones) to cast, if any. Until I decide to make the toss, there is no actual outcome. If you cannot see this, there is no reason to continue.

I know you will run away from me, its just a matter of time, not because I am omniscient but because I know my argument.
Your argument asks for and requires a conversation with an omniscient being.
Remember that, the other person is omniscient.
So when you ask an omniscient being for the number of the dice which will appear the answer is indeed 3. This is simply because he is omniscient and has seen the answer.

It does not matter if you have not yet thrown the physical dice because you have already asked for and received the result of that throw.

Your problem stems from the fact that you subsequently created a second question but still maintained that you wished only for the answer to the first question.

Hence your confusion, you are looking at the second question while scratching your head at the answer to the first question.

If it helps you to visualize the problem, here it is in a visual format;

You ask question A → receive answer to A then change (name removed by moderator)ut in question A which makes it a different question B but still ask for answer to question A

Question A → Answer A → Question B → Answer A

You asked for the answer to question A after you asked the question B.

 

[mytruepower2]

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.)

I think people are overreacting to this. This is just a thought experiment.

What would follow from this would be one of two things. Either we need to re-examine our logic, and the claim made (usually the case,) or else it would follow that some church other than the Catholic Church is the one true faith, and we’d need to go looking for evidence of another church, with a clear connection to Jesus, and with constant, unchanging teachings.

However, since there really aren’t any to speak of, I agree with a previous poster that this is impossible.

 

[Back2Church]

It will vary, if we have true, libertarian free will. Our decisions are influenced but not determined by the circumstances.

Ok, cool. But since this exact same process will yield various results in different instances, with free will being the only source of cause for the deviation in results, a mathematical proof cannot be established. Therefore mathematical induction cannot be applied to this scenario.

I presented a counter to your argument earlier. Your only objection to my counter was thus:

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…”

But now that we have established that the method of mathematical induction cannot be applied to this scenario, your objection fails. So it seems that is was you who has made a simple error, not me. Mathematics cannot account for free will choices. Therefore my original counter to your argument remains valid.

In conclusion, your original argument is flawed, in that it could never be resolved due to the infinite nature of its process. Thanks for teaching me about mathematical induction, though. That was a new one for me. Now I’m even better prepared for such arguments in the future.

 

[Starrsmother]

I think people are overreacting to this. This is just a thought experiment.

What would follow from this would be one of two things. Either we need to re-examine our logic, and the claim made (usually the case,) or else it would follow that some church other than the Catholic Church is the one true faith, and we’d need to go looking for evidence of another church, with a clear connection to Jesus, and with constant, unchanging teachings.

However, since there really aren’t any to speak of, I agree with a previous poster that this is impossible.

I agree that it’s impossible too!!! I’d even go so far as to take an additional step and to BET that this thread starter is either trolling or clueless! Let me share this little story with some of you: In the 30 years that I lived as somewhere between an agnostic and atheist, totally fallen away from the Catholic Church, one of my favorite “hobbies” if you will, was to carefully read and examine church dogma and infallible teachings all through the ages. My hope and plan was to prove at least ONE point, taught by the Catholic church as infallible truth that was infact absolutely not correct or infallible. When I began my search, I honestly believed that it would be a simple enough search, and I thought that if I went back even as far as the Middle Ages, much less before that time, that I’d find many such mistakes and quite easily without much work.

I did this, I am ashamed to admit (though I need and accept the humiliation of admitting how my pride worked back then) because I am a cradle Catholic who was raised in the church but fell away from a religion that I decided was antiquated and didn’t apply to me. When I fell away, my mother prayed for me to return every day of her life–and knowing that she did so irritated me even more . My mom died just over two years now, at the age of 98. Anyway, Mom and I argued so very often about the church and Catholic teaching and my thought process back then was that when and if I found even one thing that had been declared infallible by the Catholic Church ever— but turned out to be obviously incorrectly defined as such—that I would then have the indescribable pleasure of firmly and gleefully pointing it out to my mother and basically rubbing her nose in it! I absolutely planned to show this little old lady that I was right and that she had wasted nearly 100 years believing a crock of cr*p. ! Now just how terrible is that? Pretty terrible and terribly prideful, I can now admit.

Anyway, how did it end? Did I win and get to hurt an older woman who was my loving mother on her death bed?

Nope! Mom won, just as I now bet she always knew she would!! God brought me home to the Catholic church within a week after she died–and in a way that in itself was so unpredictable that it is at least close to if not provably a genuine miracle–and I like to think that Mom knows this.(At least I hope God allowed her this small blessing for putting up with my foolishness for so many years.) And, while there are indeed some church taught infallible doctrines–such as the concept of the Trinity—that can’t be proven in black and white or even explained well by a human mind–there is not ONE, SINGLE thing that the Catholic church has ever taught as infallible truth that has ever been proven not to be so! And so today, with complete humility, I want to say that I looked long and hard and often and thoroughly and that I am a college educated,professional woman at a post graduate level, with a specialty in a medical field–and I do know how to explore such things and I can read (as well as understand what I do read) including in depth treatises, and when I set my mind on something, I can be more thorough in research than any of you could possibly believe. So, what did I find about the infallible teachings of the Catholic church?

I was very, very, VERY proud. BUT, I was also very, very, VERY WRONG! I can truthfully state and with a degree of authority, that there has never been-- nor is there now-- even one single thing that the Catholic Church has ever taught as infallible but which has later proven to be less than infallible! And that, my friends, is a FACT! Now, I tell people this: When the Catholic Church decides that something is “infallibly true”, everyone would be well advised to accept it as such… I would say as Jesus once said so very often: “Let him who has ears hear!”

 

[Bagheera]

But now that we have established that the method of mathematical induction cannot be applied to this scenario, your objection fails. So it seems that is was you who has made a simple error, not me. Mathematics cannot account for free will choices. Therefore my original counter to your argument remains valid.

In conclusion, your original argument is flawed, in that it could never be resolved due to the infinite nature of its process. Thanks for teaching me about mathematical induction, though. That was a new one for me. Now I’m even better prepared for such arguments in the future.

The tools of mathematics are much more complicated than they can be explained within a few short paragraphs. The concept of induction is more than inheritance from “n” to “n+1”. As long as the same behavior is established, one does not need to examine every single particular setup.

There is a generalized tic-tac-toe game, played on a “sufficiently large” (infinite) paper, where the two players have to place “n” X-s or O-s in a row, column or diagonal. The question is “can we decide if the first or the second player has the advantage, if both play the perfect strategy”. If “n” is 1, 2, 3 or 4, the starting player always wins. If the number is 9 or higher, the game is always a theoretical “draw”. For 5, 6, 7 and 8 the answer is unknown. The point is that we can know the result for infinitely many “n”-s without going through a formal induction. Don’t think that just hearing about the concept of induction you already “know” everything that can be known about it. Math is a heavy duty discipline. And no, your original argument does not hold.

Moreover, the behavior of groups containing free individuals can be analyzed with a different part of mathematics, namely statistics. However, all that is irrelevant as I explained before.

There is only one simple setup, which is repeated every time a prediction is made…

1. prediction →
2. freedom to choose →
3. a choice different from the prediction.

There is no need to go back to 1), we already know that the process will be repeated - without introducing any formal “n” to “n+1” step.

If the “tentative” future is revealed, one can make a different choice and thus invalidate the prediction. I took pains to explain the two similar problems of “changing the past” and “knowing the future”. I suggest you ponder that. Though it is getting pretty sad that I invest time and energy into presenting some exhaustive explanation, and then it is being neglected, as if nothing was said.

 

[tonyrey]

I agree that it’s impossible too!!! I’d even go so far as to take an additional step and to BET that this thread starter is either trolling or clueless! Let me share this little story with some of you: In the 30 years that I lived as somewhere between an agnostic and atheist, totally fallen away from the Catholic Church, one of my favorite “hobbies” if you will, was to carefully read and examine church dogma and infallible teachings all through the ages. My hope and plan was to prove at least ONE point, taught by the Catholic church as infallible truth that was infact absolutely not correct or infallible. When I began my search, I honestly believed that it would be a simple enough search, and I thought that if I went back even as far as the Middle Ages, much less before that time, that I’d find many such mistakes and quite easily without much work.

I did this, I am ashamed to admit (though I need and accept the humiliation of admitting how my pride worked back then) because I am a cradle Catholic who was raised in the church but fell away from a religion that I decided was antiquated and didn’t apply to me. When I fell away, my mother prayed for me to return every day of her life–and knowing that she did so irritated me even more . My mom died just over two years now, at the age of 98. Anyway, Mom and I argued so very often about the church and Catholic teaching and my thought process back then was that when and if I found even one thing that had been declared infallible by the Catholic Church ever— but turned out to be obviously incorrectly defined as such—that I would then have the indescribable pleasure of firmly and gleefully pointing it out to my mother and basically rubbing her nose in it! I absolutely planned to show this little old lady that I was right and that she had wasted nearly 100 years believing a crock of cr*p. ! Now just how terrible is that? Pretty terrible and terribly prideful, I can now admit.

Anyway, how did it end? Did I win and get to hurt an older woman who was my loving mother on her death bed?

Nope! Mom won, just as I now bet she always knew she would!! God brought me home to the Catholic church within a week after she died–and in a way that in itself was so unpredictable that it is at least close to if not provably a genuine miracle–and I like to think that Mom knows this.(At least I hope God allowed her this small blessing for putting up with my foolishness for so many years.) And, while there are indeed some church taught infallible doctrines–such as the concept of the Trinity—that can’t be proven in black and white or even explained well by a human mind–there is not ONE, SINGLE thing that the Catholic church has ever taught as infallible truth that has ever been proven not to be so! And so today, with complete humility, I want to say that I looked long and hard and often and thoroughly and that I am a college educated,professional woman at a post graduate level, with a specialty in a medical field–and I do know how to explore such things and I can read (as well as understand what I do read) including in depth treatises, and when I set my mind on something, I can be more thorough in research than any of you could possibly believe. So, what did I find about the infallible teachings of the Catholic church?

I was very, very, VERY proud. BUT, I was also very, very, VERY WRONG! I can truthfully state and with a degree of authority, that there has never been-- nor is there now-- even one single thing that the Catholic Church has ever taught as infallible but which has later proven to be less than infallible! And that, my friends, is a FACT! Now, I tell people this: When the Catholic Church decides that something is “infallibly true”, everyone would be well advised to accept it as such… I would say as Jesus once said so very often: “Let him who has ears hear!”

:clapping: A superb post.

 

[Back2Church]

The tools of mathematics are much more complicated than they can be explained within a few short paragraphs. The concept of induction is more than inheritance from “n” to “n+1”. As long as the same behavior is established, one does not need to examine every single particular setup.

There is a generalized tic-tac-toe game, played on a “sufficiently large” (infinite) paper, where the two players have to place “n” X-s or O-s in a row, column or diagonal. The question is “can we decide if the first or the second player has the advantage, if both play the perfect strategy”. If “n” is 1, 2, 3 or 4, the starting player always wins. If the number is 9 or higher, the game is always a theoretical “draw”. For 5, 6, 7 and 8 the answer is unknown. The point is that we can know the result for infinitely many “n”-s without going through a formal induction. Don’t think that just hearing about the concept of induction you already “know” everything that can be known about it. Math is a heavy duty discipline. And no, your original argument does not hold.

Sure, it works for something simple like tic-tac-toe, because, despite what you claim here, there are not an infinite number of choices. If I put just one X on the board, every possible move can be mapped out. It would take a while, but it’s completely possible, because there are a finite number of possible moves that can be made. Then you start over with the first X in a different spot and map out all those possibilities. Rinse and repeat for all spaces and you have every possible result for a tic-tac-toe game listed out.

And even in your tic-tac-toe example you claim that in some cases mathematics cannot determine the answer, so even with a finite amount of possibilities, mathematics cannot completely account for free will choice. How can you think it will be any better with an infinite amount of possibilities with an unfixed set of variables?

Moreover, the behavior of groups containing free individuals can be analyzed with a different part of mathematics, namely statistics. However, all that is irrelevant as I explained before.

Statistics takes already existing data and formulates predictions based off of the patterns found within that data. These predictions are also generalized, rather than specific to the smallest detail. That’s much different than the hypothetical test you are proposing here. Irrelevant, indeed.

There is only one simple setup, which is repeated every time a prediction is made…

1. prediction →
2. freedom to choose →
3. a choice different from the prediction.

There is no need to go back to 1), we already know that the process will be repeated - without introducing any formal “n” to “n+1” step.

If the “tentative” future is revealed, one can make a different choice and thus invalidate the prediction. I took pains to explain the two similar problems of “changing the past” and “knowing the future”. I suggest you ponder that. Though it is getting pretty sad that I invest time and energy into presenting some exhaustive explanation, and then it is being neglected, as if nothing was said.

You’re making a fatal flaw in the analysis of your own thought experiment.

You say it’s simply Prediction->Freedom->Choice(different from prediction). That’s not the full picture at all.

The setup is more accurately presented as such:

1. Infinite amount of predictions of all conditional actions →
2. Freedom to choose →
3. Never being able to actually choose, because you are listening for the rest of eternity to all the predictions.

You’ll never get to make a choice. Ever. Your choice is conditional on the prediction and the prediction is conditional on your choice. You cannot make a choice without the prediction, and since you intend to make a choice that’s in contradiction to the prediction, the prediction is no longer of a single result, but of an infinite amount of possible results. Since this prediction is infinite in nature, you’ll never get around to hearing the end of it, and thus never be able to make your choice. You’re caught in an infinite loop.

But I believe we are in agreement up to this point, yes? What we are not agreeing on is whether you can take a look at one snippet of this infinite chain of possibilities and find a contradiction or not. I say no. Why? Because at no point in this infinite chain of possibilities will you find any actual, specific value. It will always be Prediction = infinite number of possibilities and Result = infinite number of possibilities. There is no contradiction there.

You might say at this point, “Ah ha! So God cannot tell me what the actual roll will be, but only the infinitely possible results of the roll.” That’s because there is no actual roll in this scenario. In order for you to be able to choose in contradiction with the prediction, you must first hear the prediction. Since you can never hear the full prediction, due to it’s infinite nature, you can never make a choice and therefore never roll. If you decide to roll before hearing the full prediction, then you invalidate your own test.

So is anything here contradicting Catholic dogma? Not all. Catholic dogma says God is infinite, so he has no problem with infinite loops or chains. In fact, he can think of an infinite number of infinite loops and still have an infinite amount of thought, presence, and power to keep on doing what he’s doing… Infinitely.