What would be your reaction?

[Bagheera]

I base the argument on this document: List of dogmas

The Attributes of the Divine Life

1. God’s knowledge is infinite. (De fide.)
2. God’s knowledge is purely and simply actual.
3. God’s knowledge is subsistent
4. God’s knowledge is comprehensive
5. God’s knowledge is independent of extra-divine things
6. The primary and formal object of the Divine Cognition is God Himself. (Scientia contemplationis)
7. God knows all that is merely possible by the knowledge of simple intelligence (scientia simplicis intelligentiae). (De fide.)
8. God knows all real things in the past, the present and the future (Scientia visionis). (De fide.)
9. By knowledge of vision (scientia visionis) God also foresees the free acts of the rational creatures with infallible certainty. (De fide.)
10. God also knows the conditioned future free actions with infallible certainty (Scientia futuribilium). (Sent. communis.)

Is there anyone who wishes to dispute the validity of this list? Add or delete something? Btw, is there anyone here who has access to that “divine logic”?

Once we can agree on the actual list of the dogmas, we can start the conversation.

 

[Back2Church]

Those aren’t examples. According to your opening post, examples would be specific infallible teachings that were later proven to be incorrect. So, what are they?

That’s not the same person as the OP.

 

[agnes_therese]

That’s not the same person as the OP.

Oops, my bad.

 

[Back2Church]

I base the argument on this document: List of dogmas

Is there anyone who wishes to dispute the validity of this list? Add or delete something? Btw, is there anyone here who has access to that “divine logic”?

Once we can agree on the actual list of the dogmas, we can start the conversation.

Ah, I can see where this is going.

By all means, let’s hear it! Let’s see the logical impossibility you have come up with that 2000 years of some of the best philosophers and scholars of all time have totally missed.

Unfortunately I have to go to class, so I won’t be able to see it until late tonight. I doubt there will be anything left to argue by then, but I’ll happily join in if there is.

 

[anthonymarie]

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.)

Obviously depends in when and where the dogma came from. For example, I would might concede to the Orthodox that the Roman Catholic Church got it wrong on somethings if these weren’t dogma in the Orthodox Churches. However, given the nature of what it means to believe something I’m not expecting to agree with your example.

Is there anyone who wishes to dispute the validity of this list? Add or delete something? Btw, is there anyone here who has access to that “divine logic”?

A. I have not heard of all of them and it would take me a while to verify them. (Dr Ott’s opinion of what is or isn’t Dogma is not Dogmatic)
B. Many of those statements seem to me to belong either in a context or with a set of particular or restrictive definitions.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

Don’t be so sure. Besides, thought experiments are the foundations of progress. Even if they cannot happen, they are useful to expand our knowledge by eliminating a “negative”. .

In science one always starts with an unsubstantiated hypothesis, and attempts to substantiate it by examining the corollaries. There is nothing “presumptuous” about it.

It is pretty good fun to see the cowardly attempts to avoid hard questions by stating that they “cannot happen”. Par for the course…

By definition a dogma is the result of an experiment. The negatives were eliminated. The Dogma is the answer you are looking for.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Agreed that Divine Logic trumps human logic. However, there is only one way to tell if the person had Christ speaking through them - and that is if I can Hear HIs Voice in others (oral or written) because He is inside of me. If not, I believe/follow blindly, leaning on my own understanding or someone else’s.

So, for me, the answer is ‘yes’ - it is possible for an ‘infallible’ teaching to be false and the sheep not be able to tell the difference, if we do not possess the genuine ability to ‘test the spirits’.

Of course God dwells within us. But we are intelligent creatures ( God made us that way ) and he expects us to use that intelligence to arrive at the truth. So we examine the history of the Church to see how God has spoken to the Chruch. I think you know where I am going from here.

Pax

Linus2nd

 

[Perplexity]

#'s 29 & 30 seem to entail that God’s knowledge is actually infinite. I can just hear WLC: “Hwell, hwhat’s problematic here is that actual infinites are impossible.”

 

[Paddy_Walker]

Examples, works done by Galileo and Copernicus.

Galileo was wrong. Heliocentrism is wrong. If that is what you meant.

 

[Perplexity]

Ah, I can see where this is going.

By all means, let’s hear it! Let’s see the logical impossibility you have come up with that 2000 years of some of the best philosophers and scholars of all time have totally missed.

Unfortunately I have to go to class, so I won’t be able to see it until late tonight. I doubt there will be anything left to argue by then, but I’ll happily join in if there is.

I love how you assume the best philosophers and scholars have in fact missed it lol.

Off to class? Puts you in grad-school in the best case scenario (though your confidence is rarely found outside the confines of under-grad). Let’s hope you’ve devoted the hundreds upon hundreds of hours of study it’d take for your opinion on whether anyone has discovered a contradiction to be qualified.

 

[Beryllos]

This discussion has certainly had a long buildup. I hope there is something to it after all.

 

[Bagheera]

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
2. God knows all that is merely possible by the knowledge of simple intelligence (scientia simplicis intelligentiae). (De fide.)
3. God knows all real things in the past, the present and the future (Scientia visionis). (De fide.)
4. By knowledge of vision (scientia visionis) God also foresees the free acts of the rational creatures with infallible certainty. (De fide.)
5. 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.

 

[tonyrey]

I love how you assume the best philosophers and scholars have in fact missed it lol.

Off to class? Puts you in grad-school in the best case scenario (though your confidence is rarely found outside the confines of under-grad). Let’s hope you’ve devoted the hundreds upon hundreds of hours of study it’d take for your opinion on whether anyone has discovered a contradiction to be qualified.

A superb example of an ad hominem…

 

[Bahman]

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
2. God knows all that is merely possible by the knowledge of simple intelligence (scientia simplicis intelligentiae). (De fide.)
3. God knows all real things in the past, the present and the future (Scientia visionis). (De fide.)
4. By knowledge of vision (scientia visionis) God also foresees the free acts of the rational creatures with infallible certainty. (De fide.)
5. 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.

Nice to read, I am sure that you will receive (name removed by moderator)ut such as you would pick up dices that God predict in spite of your wish.

 

[Beryllos]

S: These are just words. You need to prove your assertion, if you want me to accept your omniscience.

I think the flaw in your line of reasoning is here. God does not need to prove anything. Why would he care if you do or do not “accept” his omniscience?

 

[carn]

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.

Your prove depends on the assumption that a human, who is inclined to defy Gods words (by intending to act in a way contradicting Gods words), can be in Gods presence and communicate with him and understand his answer and maintain his determination to act in a way proving God isnt omniscient. How do you know the situation would not end the following way:
“G: You will throw the red dice in 30 secs and it will show five.
S: Um, ok, you are right, thats what i will do, because it is good and just to do so.”

 

[Bahman]

I think the flaw in your line of reasoning is here. God does not need to prove anything. Why would he care if you do or do not “accept” his omniscience?

That doesn’t really change the flow. The idea is very simple, we can accept the omniscience, and the only thing that we ask is God knowledge about a future action, then do contrary.

 

[Bagheera]

Nice to read, I am sure that you will receive (name removed by moderator)ut such as you would pick up dices that God predict in spite of your wish.

Good foresight. Carn did exactly that.

How do you know the situation would not end the following way:
“G: You will throw the red dice in 30 secs and it will show five.
S: Um, ok, you are right, thats what i will do, because it is good and just to do so.”

No way. As long as God does not tinker with my free will, I intend to act contrarian - just for the fun of it.

That doesn’t really change the flow. The idea is very simple, we can accept the omniscience, and the only thing that we ask is God knowledge about a future action, then do contrary.

Well said. The proof points out that God’s knowledge is contingent upon keeping that knowledge “secret”. Of course it becomes even more problematic. There is another dogma, which says that God is “simple”, which means that God’s knowledge cannot be separated from God’s essence. And since God’s knowledge is contingent, it follows that God’s essence is contingent.

 

[tonyrey]

I think the flaw in your line of reasoning is here. God does not need to prove anything. Why would he care if you do or do not “accept” his omniscience?

Reductio ad absurdum. It makes God dependent on our whims.

 

[tonyrey]

That doesn’t really change the flow. The idea is very simple, we can accept the omniscience, and the only thing that we ask is God knowledge about a future action, then do contrary.

You are assuming God is like a person in the next room! The Creator is not a creature in time and space.