What would be your reaction?

[polytropos]

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.

All of this talk of induction is pretty irrelevant. As you note, we can know what would happen for a theoretical board of infinite size, but the point is that we could never play a game of tic tac toe on a board of infinite size, since an actual infinite number of moves would be required to finish. And if God were to list out the discrete possibilities, you would not live long enough to hear them all. God would not finish articulating his prediction, so you would never be able to act in defiance of his prediction.

But it doesn’t really matter whether Back2Church’s interpretation is right (one problem with it, if I am understanding it correctly, seems to be that the number of possibilities may not be infinite, but even that would not show that your thought experiment is sound). All that you can show is that it is logically impossible for God to reveal what a free agent is determined to contravene, which is decidedly unremarkable. It does not follow that God lacks any knowledge. Please respond to #76 and #77 if you disagree with this.

 

[Back2Church]

But it doesn’t really matter whether Back2Church’s interpretation is right (one problem with it, if I am understanding it correctly, seems to be that the number of possibilities may not be infinite,

Well, darn, I thought I made it all pretty clear. Yes, the possibilities are infinite. Could you let me know which thing I said that made you think I might be saying otherwise? Just so can clarify the wording.

 

[Bagheera]

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

It is sufficient to show that the prediction was invalidated. That is all we need.

 

[polytropos]

Well, darn, I thought I made it all pretty clear. Yes, the possibilities are infinite. Could you let me know which thing I said that made you think I might be saying otherwise? Just so can clarify the wording.

Well, again, you’ll have to correct me if I’m making a mistake. But suppose that there is a finite set of rolls {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6}. It seems like God could say, if I choose 1, you do 2; if I choose 2, you do 3, if I choose 3, you do 4; and so on. But then God would be accounting for 6 contingencies. Why does there need to be an infinite loop? I agree with you that, if there are an infinite number of possibilities, then Bagheera will grow old and pass away without ever getting to act, but I don’t see why the number need be infinite.

 

[Bagheera]

All of this talk of induction is pretty irrelevant.

Correct. It is partially my fault to answer the incorrect objection of B2C.I should have just ignored it.

As you note, we can know what would happen for a theoretical board of infinite size, but the point is that we could never play a game of tic tac toe on a board of infinite size, since an actual infinite number of moves would be required to finish.

The board is not actually “infinite”, but its size is not static. When we get close to edge, we simply add a few more rows and columns to it. Again, has nothing to do with the problem at all.

But it doesn’t really matter whether Back2Church’s interpretation is right (one problem with it, if I am understanding it correctly, seems to be that the number of possibilities may not be infinite, but even that would not show that your thought experiment is sound).

Having the original example of 3 dice with different colors, and one actual roll, the outcomes are definitely finite.

All that you can show is that it is logically impossible for God to reveal what a free agent is determined to contravene, which is decidedly unremarkable. It does not follow that God lacks any knowledge.

I could answer two different ways. At the very least, God’s alleged knowledge is contingent upon NOT revealing this knowledge, thus proving that #33 dogma is incorrect. And that is what I intended to establish.

Of course, “knowing” the future is only possible in fully deterministic processes. And even then we have a problem. The Molinist “middle knowledge” insinuates that “conditional” actions can also be “known”. To say that something is “knowable” if it did not happen and will never happen, but could happen or could have happened is meaningless. Some philosophers say that “knowledge” is “justified true belief”. To be more precise, knowledge is valid information about something. Neither one is applicable here. You cannot have information about the nonexistent. And even if you have some **speculation **about the nonexistent, how can you justify it? Imagine this scenario: "I do not have a book on my non-existent nightstand (I could have a night-stand, but I don’t), because the author was never born (could have been born, however) and as such never wrote the book (could have written it, if he was born). Actually, he could have written several books. Which one of those imaginary books, not written by that hypothetical author does not reside on my virtual nightstand? According to the “conditional knowledge” of God, he can have the actual information about that nonexistent book. Does this make sense? Not to me, it does not.

 

[Back2Church]

It is sufficient to show that the prediction was invalidated. That is all we need.

Wow, did you even read the entire post?

I’m open to admitting to a flaw in my logic, but you have to point it out. If there is a flaw, then I’ll gladly attempt to revise my argument or admit defeat if I cannot fix it. But your statement here is basically saying “It is sufficient that we ignore your entire argument. That is all we need.”

The prediction cannot be invalidated. I explained why. Find the error in my logic, and point it out. Otherwise, my argument stands as a valid counter to yours.

I imagine when you started this thread, you were expecting those who disagreed with your argument to do so with sound logic, or otherwise admit your argument is a reasonable one. I only ask the same in return.

 

[polytropos]

I could answer two different ways. At the very least, God’s alleged knowledge is contingent upon NOT revealing this knowledge, thus proving that #33 dogma is incorrect. And that is what I intended to establish.

Revealing or not revealing is God’s action or omission. All you are saying is that God’s knowledge is contingent upon Himself, which is to say not contingent at all.

Of course, “knowing” the future is only possible in fully deterministic processes. And even then we have a problem. The Molinist “middle knowledge” insinuates that “conditional” actions can also be “known”. To say that something is “knowable” if it did not happen and will never happen, but could happen or could have happened is meaningless. Some philosophers say that “knowledge” is “justified true belief”. To be more precise, knowledge is valid information about something. Neither one is applicable here. You cannot have information about the nonexistent. And even if you have some **speculation **about the nonexistent, how can you justify it? Imagine this scenario: "I do not have a book on my non-existent nightstand (I could have a night-stand, but I don’t), because the author was never born (could have been born, however) and as such never wrote the book (could have written it, if he was born). Actually, he could have written several books. Which one of those imaginary books, not written by that hypothetical author does not reside on my virtual nightstand? According to the “conditional knowledge” of God, he can have the actual information about that nonexistent book. Does this make sense? Not to me, it does not.

This seems to make sense if you are thinking of God as a person who can see into the future. But as I said earlier, God is not a fortuneteller. What it means to say that God is eternal is that, because He doesn’t change, He is present to all times. So he does know what happens at any given time, but not just because He has complete knowledge of “the present” and runs a deterministic computation to figure out what the future will be like. God knows what the future will be because he is as present to the future as to our present. Since God created time, He is not bound by being in a certain time.

 

[Back2Church]

Having the original example of 3 dice with different colors, and one actual roll, the outcomes are definitely finite.

WHOA, WHOA, WHOA… Don’t go changing the parameters of your own test, now. Tsk, tsk. :dts:

From your original argument:

…
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: 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.

Time was also a factor in your original argument. This increases the number of possible combinations infinitely. You had no problems with infinite possibilities before, which is why you tried to evoke mathematical induction as the bandaid to cover the hole I poked in your argument, as seen he:

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…”

If you thought the possibilities were finite, then that’s what you would have used to counter my argument, as it would have been a much more concise and efficient response. But you didn’t, which tells me you were perfectly fine with infinite possibilities in the beginning.

Now that you see the bandaid doesn’t stick, you’re trying to backpedal and say infinite possibilities were never even part of the scenario? Please say it ain’t so!

If you want to modify your original argument, then fine. Just allow us to adjust ours to match. But don’t go trying to pull a fast one on us by saying it was that way from the beginning. I’m not falling for that old trick!

 

[polytropos]

WHOA, WHOA, WHOA… Don’t go changing the parameters of your own test, now. Tsk, tsk. :dts:

From your original argument:

Time was also a factor in your original argument. This increases the number of possible combinations infinitely. You had no problems with infinite possibilities before, which is why you tried to evoke mathematical induction as the bandaid to cover the hole I poked in your argument, as seen he:

OK, this seems pretty reasonable (and explains what I missed), given the way the argument was stated. If God must also predict an arbitrary number of details (like time), then the possibilities are infinite.

 

[JohnAlexander]

The argument is basically this

God tells you what you are going to do in the future so you purposely change what you do to make that future not happen.

Your assumption is that this scenario is something that can happen. It can’t. Paradoxes are not possible.

 

[Bagheera]

Revealing or not revealing is God’s action or omission. All you are saying is that God’s knowledge is contingent upon Himself, which is to say not contingent at all.

No, I did not say that. I say that God’s knowledge of our actions is **contingent **upon what we do. To say that God has some “innate” knowledge, which “somehow” happens to correspond to our actions is nonsense. There are two basic scenarios: “God’s knowledge somehow causes our actions” - which would take away our free will, and “our actions are the source of God’s knowledge” - which means that God’s knowledge is contingent upon what we do. Theoretically there could be some other cases, but those are totally irrational.

This seems to make sense if you are thinking of God as a person who can see into the future. But as I said earlier, God is not a fortuneteller. What it means to say that God is eternal is that, because He doesn’t change, He is present to all times. So he does know what happens at any given time, but not just because He has complete knowledge of “the present” and runs a deterministic computation to figure out what the future will be like. God knows what the future will be because he is as present to the future as to our present. Since God created time, He is not bound by being in a certain time.

Makes no sense. The “future” is merely a compound of possibilities, without actualities. One of the possibilities will become the actuality **when **the “future” rolls around. What you say raises the same problem that has been discussed before. There is only one reality, no matter whose “position” we contemplate. If an event is simply a possibility from our perspective, it cannot be an actuality from God’s perspective. It cannot be denied that the future is only a possibility from our perspective. Therefore it assert that it is already an actuality from God’s perspective would be a contradiction.

The possible future is not more “real” than the contents of the nonexistent book which does not reside on my hypothetical night-stand. Neither exists, and both could exist. The two dogmas #35 and #38 “express” that God’s knowledge extends to these, too. Which makes these dogmas completely incoherent. The number of pages in a book that has never been written and therefore was never published and never printed is unknowable. What is nonexistent, cannot be “known”.

 

[Bagheera]

Time was also a factor in your original argument. This increases the number of possible combinations infinitely.

No, not “infinitely”, since time moves in discrete, Planck-size increments. But again none of these is relevant. I inserted the time limit to simplify the experiment. I could have simply said a coin-toss which I intended to do within the next five minutes. If God would say “heads”, I would simply put the coin down as “tails”. (There was no stipulation of a random toss).

If you want to modify your original argument, then fine. Just allow us to adjust ours to match. But don’t go trying to pull a fast one on us by saying it was that way from the beginning. I’m not falling for that old trick!

There are important and not-so important parts of the argument. To go down to the basics, I ask God to reveal my next volitional action within a certain time-frame. The 3 dice of different colors were merely an example, to help you to visualize the scenario. The time limit is important, so we have some limitation on the experiment, to decide if the prediction was fulfilled, or not. It has no other relevance.

True, I could have just said: “I ask God to tell me if I will snap my fingers in the next 5 minutes”. If he says: “yes”, then I would use free will not to snap them. If he says “no”, then I would contradict that, too. I am sorry that you misunderstood the point and considered the “fluff” also important.

 

[Bagheera]

The argument is basically this

God tells you what you are going to do in the future so you purposely change what you do to make that future not happen.

Your assumption is that this scenario is something that can happen. It can’t. Paradoxes are not possible.

Aha! You are on the right track. But which part is the impossible?!

 

[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.

Correction:

“…his belief that his analysis of Omniscience and Omnipotence is infallible.”

The full implications of Omniscience c**annot be understood unless one is omniscient.

In other words it amounts to a claim to have divine knowledge - which is rather presumptuous for a creature with limited intelligence…
**

 

[Bahman]

There are several issues that put serious threats on concept of God omniscience (strong):

1. Time is continuous meaning each small interval can be divided into infinite slices. One of the main question is whether God can know all events accruing at given instant which is infinite assuming that creation is infinite. The situation become worst when you add time.
2. Free will which as it is define is the ability, unknown to us and God, to choose between at least two options. This ability is unknown to us and God as otherwise we would become our own or God devices when it come to situation that a decision is required. By device I mean an instrument in which its behaviour is known in all possible situation. Whether we are God devices or individuals with free will. God omniscience (strong) just could only be comprehend when we as God creations are only simple devices.
3. There is another argument which state why we should be in state of suffering if loving God is already know our final destinies.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

There are several issues that put serious threats on concept of God omniscience (strong):

1. Time is continuous meaning each small interval can be divided into infinite slices. One of the main question is whether God can know all events accruing at given instant which is infinite assuming that creation is infinite. The situation become worst when you add time.
2. Free will which as it is define is the ability, unknown to us and God, to choose between at least two options. This ability is unknown to us and God as otherwise we would become our own or God devices when it come to situation that a decision is required. By device I mean an instrument in which its behaviour is known in all possible situation. Whether we are God devices or individuals with free will. God omniscience (strong) just could only be comprehend when we as God creations are only simple devices.
3. There is another argument which state why we should be in state of suffering if loving God is already know our final destinies.

I know you and your companions think you have demonstrated something grand. However you have not proven anything, as I explained earlier. God does not play games, so the whole story is mute. But keep on, the sheep are apparantly oblivious to that fact. The trap is that they led astray by a lie. And isn’t that the Satan operates? He never tells the truth, or at least not the whole truth.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

I know you and your companions think you have demonstrated something grand. However you have not proven anything, as I explained earlier. God does not play games, so the whole story is mute. But keep on, the sheep are apparantly oblivious to that fact. The trap is that they led astray by a lie. And isn’t that the Satan operates? He never tells the truth, or at least not the whole truth.

Linus2nd

So where is the flaw in my arguments? I really like to ask you a question whether a human being is a God device or a being with free will. As for Satan, who said that we have to hear the truth from him, we have search the truth, find the truth, and truth eventually will set us free.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

So where is the flaw in my arguments? I really like to ask you a question whether a human being is a God device or a being with free will. As for Satan, who said that we have to hear the truth from him, we have search the truth, find the truth, and truth eventually will set us free.

The flaw is you don’t have an argument, you have a game and God does not play games. He will not participate. And if he did, he would be sure you didn’t change your mind. God wins, you loose. The kind of stuff you are engaged in is Satans game. You can’ t win.

I have no idea what you mean by a God device. If you want to talk to me you will have to use concepts which actually mean something.

Linus2nd

 

[Bagheera]

I know you and your companions think you have demonstrated something grand.

Grand? There is nothing grand or special about a contradiction. Of course it is rather futile to try to conduct a rational conversation with people who deny the most obvious contradictions and call them “mysteries”.

God does not play games, so the whole story is mute.

No one talks about “God” per se. The conversation was all about the “catholic concept of God”, which is proven to be faulty especially when it comes to this “omniscience”. God could not participate in the game (even if he existed) because he would lose. Whatever omniscience might be, it cannot include the knowledge of something that is nonexistent, be it a never-written book, or a free action in the future. And that is what has been thoroughly ***proven ***in this thread.

 

[Bahman]

The flaw is you don’t have an argument, you have a game and God does not play games. He will not participate. And if he did, he would be sure you didn’t change your mind. God wins, you loose. The kind of stuff you are engaged in is Satans game. You can’ t win.

I have no idea what you mean by a God device. If you want to talk to me you will have to use concepts which actually mean something.

Linus2nd

I already define what do I mean with device. A being/Gods device in your opinion (not my opinion) is something that his/hers action is known from God point of view in every possible situation. That is what you define as being then ask me to define it. Imagine a creation with only two beings, one God and second a being lets say an angel. Form God point of view, the action of angel is known for every situation (infinite possibilities). The main question is how God could possibly be unaware of outcome of a decision made by angel if he does know his angle since the quality of knowledge of angel action based on your faith means that God knows the action of his angel in every possible situation. Angel is reduced to a device in this picture, so complex that angel could not know his/her action in a situation. I am terribly sorry for this angel but the concept of free will is an illusion from God point of view so it is from angel point of view once the angel is told that all his action is known from God point of view.

There are a few question that should be the focus of one person to resolves all these paradox:

1. What is the correct definition of free will?
2. What is the right definition of omniscience?
3. What is the right definition of God will?