What would be your reaction?

[polytropos]

Not according to dogma #35. It explicitly says that “**God knows all that is merely possible by the knowledge of simple intelligence (scientia simplicis intelligentiae). (De fide.) **”. There is no stipulation about that “merely possible” to become “actual”, ever. So, yes, the dogma definitely talks about the non-existent, but possible, however never-will-be-actual objects and events. Yup, the apologists definitely grabbed too much, and it is slipping through their fingers. Of course, they deny it.

What we’re saying is not contradicting that. For instance, if your thought experiment is arranged such that there are infinite possibilities, we have said that God could list the possible outcomes. If there is an infinite number, then none of the outcomes in which you act are going to actually happen, since you will never hear the end of God’s prediction.

Even humans can countenance counterfactual and conditional propositions. “If it rains today, I will carry my umbrella with me.” Such a statement can be true without it raining and without me carrying my umbrella. This is different from having actual knowledge of a steak on your nightstand which is not there and never will be there (which is impossible).

So yes, no one is denying that God knows all of the possibilities, ie. God knows what would happen if a free agent chooses A, even if He knows that the free agent will actually choose B.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Don’t be so sure.

If we weren’t in some sense “sure” of the doctrine then we wouldn’t be Catholics. We have to believe it.

Strictly speaking it is impossible. The infallible cannot actually be falsified. The consequences of an actually infallible doctrine being actually falsified would be that it wasn’t infallible; and for Catholicism it would mean that our religion was false.

Besides, thought experiments are the foundations of progress.

I don’t suggest anyone try to solve a per se contradiction if they wish to remain sane. The only way to “solve” a contradiction is just eliminating the contradiction by, presumably, some sort of qualification or just denying the contradiction: denying, e.g., that some thing both actually exists and does not exist at the same time. Sane people will not grant a contradiction anymore than they will grant for the sake of experiment that one plus one equalled three.

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

There certainly is something “presumptuous” about granting an impossibility. In fact that is putting it most mildly.

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

It’s even more fun watching people make science seem like the religion of very delluded people and reducing it to nothing more than mere scepticism.

 

[Bagheera]

Well, it is getting late here, so only a few short remarks.

What we’re saying is not contradicting that. For instance, if your thought experiment is arranged such that there are infinite possibilities, we have said that God could list the possible outcomes. If there is an infinite number, then none of the outcomes in which you act are going to actually happen, since you will never hear the end of God’s prediction.

No one speaks of “infinite” possibilities. It is a simple, yes or no question. Can God know the **actual ** (not merely “possible”) contents of a book, which was never written, since its author was never born. Previously you said - correctly - that this is impossible, since there are many possible books, but there is no actual book. And this is a problem when one examines the dogmas.

There is a fundamental difference between knowing the “possible outcomes” and knowing the “actual outcome”. If there is no “actual outcome” and there will never be, then saying that God knows the actual outcome is nonsense. Yet, this is what the dogma says ("**God knows all that is merely possible by the knowledge of simple intelligence (scientia simplicis intelligentiae). (De fide.) **"). An “actual outcome” is possible, if the author would have been born, and would have written that book. Therefore God is supposed to “know” which one of the “possible outcomes” would become the “actual outcome” if some circumstances would be met. But that is an impossibility.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

No one speaks of “infinite” possibilities. It is a simple, yes or no question. Can God know the actual (not merely “possible”) contents of a book, which was never written, since its author was never born. .

theres nothing to know. Its like asking shouldn’t He know the contents of nothing - the answer, I think, is that there is nothing there to know.
There will never be a book there will never be an author there is nothing to know.

 

[mark_a]

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.)

Then it would be as wide open for us Catholics as it is for the rest of Christianity. Until then. . . . . . .

 

[Bagheera]

theres nothing to know. Its like asking shouldn’t He know the contents of nothing - the answer, I think, is that there is nothing there to know.
There will never be a book there will never be an author there is nothing to know.

Obviously! But it is possible that the author could have been born, and thus he could have written that book. And this is what that ill-conceived dogma asserts: “God knows all that is merely possible by the knowledge of simple intelligence (scientia simplicis intelligentiae). (De fide.)”. As the example shows, this sentence is simply incorrect / nonsensical. Something that never existed cannot be known - even if that “something” could have existed…

I am not arguing against God’s knowledge or existence, I am arguing against an incorrectly formulated “dogma”. There is nothing wrong with fallible humans stating an incorrect assertion. It is incorrect, and that is all. No harm done once the error is accepted and admitted. The problem arises when the issuer of that incorrect assertion also states its “infallibility”. To issue a logically incorrect statement - “infallibly” presented - undercuts the authority of the institute which issued that statement (at least in the eyes of the rationally thinking audience). Now what the believers will do with this contradiction is their business. They can continue to maintain their “doublethink” or open their eyes and see that they have been “bamboozled”. It is their problem, and all I can do is hope that they will recognize their error.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

Obviously! But it is possible that the author could have been born, and thus he could have written that book…

Thats the thing. It isn’t possible that that author could have been born. It was never a possibility if God had never willed it to be. The only possibilities possible are possible possibilities because they already exist as possibilities in the mind of God. Non-existent things don’t exist anywhere and there is nothing to know about things that are nothing.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

We cannot possibly do something that confer God’s knowledge based on your definition.

I don’t really understand what you are saying here. I have told you what Catholics believe based on God’s revelation. I don’t have to prove it. It is a fact of Faith.

How you could possibly prove that we are not devices of God based on your definition of God and us?

I really do object to your continued use of the term " devices. " It makes it sound like we are nothing but a piece of machinery or some kind of computer. Catholics believe we are creatures created by God. We are real human beings, composed of a living body and soul. Perfectly reasonable. Have you bothered to read anything I suggested to you?

What would be your position if I define free will as an ability that even God does not know its outcome?

I would say you are absolutely wrong.

You also didn’t explain why we should stay in state of suffering if God already knows our final destiny.

You are confused. I never mentioned suffering. But now that you do mention it, I would say we really don’t have a choice - with or without God. Suffering has been a fact of life for all humans from the beginning. Catholics would say that suffering is the result of sin, that of our first parents and our own. And by accepting it with humility there can be great spiritual benefit.

Our action based on our free will doesn’t have any value since God does already know it.

On the contrary, it shows God that we are obedient to His will. And if we are sufficiently obedient to the end, God will reward us with eternal life in His heavenly kingdom for all eternity. An eternity in which there will be no sin and no suffering, one in which we will be totally happy.

Simple, what is God purpose? Why we should wait for end of time when every thing is already known?

God’s purpose for us in this life is to test us to see if we deserve an eternal reward.

What choice do we have? There is nothing we can do to escape it. We can rebel of couse but that won’t change the outcome.

Linus2nd

 

[polytropos]

It is a simple, yes or no question. Can God know the **actual ** (not merely “possible”) contents of a book, which was never written, since its author was never born. Previously you said - correctly - that this is impossible, since there are many possible books, but there is no actual book. And this is a problem when one examines the dogmas.

Can God have actual knowledge of a book that is not written now but will be written? Yes.
Can God have actual knowledge of a book that is not written now and could be written, but won’t be written? No.
Can God have counterfactual knowledge of a book that is not written now and could be written, but won’t be written? Yes.

We don’t know whether or not a book that could be written will be written, because we are fixed in the present (ie. we cannot distinguish, generally speaking, between the first two lines above). God is not, so your assertion that the first line above is impossible just misses the point.

An “actual outcome” is possible, if the author would have been born, and would have written that book. Therefore God is supposed to “know” which one of the “possible outcomes” would become the “actual outcome” if some circumstances would be met. But that is an impossibility.

How is it an impossibility? I can obviously speculate that a book with title X will be written by author Y in year Z. Certainly, that is possible. But I am living in the present, so even though it is possible for me to be right, what I’m stating is merely possible. It is not actual knowledge. If it turns out that Y never writes X in Z, then I would have been correct that Y could have written X in Z, but I would have been wrong in stating that he would.

God is not “living in the present” like you and I, though, since He created time and is outside of it. So He has actual knowledge of the fact that Y will not write X in Z. But He knows that it is possible that Y could have written X in Z, even though He knows eternally that Y would not write X in Z.

 

[tonyrey]

Thats the thing. It isn’t possible that that author could have been born. It was never a possibility if God had never willed it to be. The only possibilities possible are possible possibilities because they already exist as possibilities in the mind of God. Non-existent things don’t exist anywhere and there is nothing to know about things that are nothing.

“It was never a possibility if God had never willed it to be” are the key words.Logical possibility is not the same as rational possibility.Anything is logically possible but we do not live on useless theories…

 

[Bagheera]

Thats the thing. It isn’t possible that that author could have been born. It was never a possibility if God had never willed it to be. The only possibilities possible are possible possibilities because they already exist as possibilities in the mind of God. Non-existent things don’t exist anywhere and there is nothing to know about things that are nothing.

You just managed to reduce our free will to a puppet status of acting out whatever God happened to will. Congratulations!

 

[Paddy_Walker]

You just managed to reduce our free will to a puppet status of acting out whatever God happened to will. Congratulations!

That cannot be true unless you believe God wills you to do evil. I’d say he knows all possibilities. What is not possible are things that do not exist. Everything else is possible, good and bad and mediocre.

 

[Bagheera]

Can God have actual knowledge of a book that is not written now but will be written? Yes.

No, not until it will be actually written.

Can God have actual knowledge of a book that is not written now and could be written, but won’t be written? No.

Agreed.

Can God have counterfactual knowledge of a book that is not written now and could be written, but won’t be written? Yes.

Counterfactual knowledge is not “knowledge”. The proposition of “if it will rain, I will take an umbrella” does not evaluate to either “true” or “false” until the conditions apply. Propositions about the future only gain a “true” or “false” status when the actual future rolls around.

But the dogma does not speak of counterfactuals. It states that God has “knowledge” about whatever is possible, even if it never gets actual.

Besides you did not analyze the fourth possibility:
"missing 4th possibility:

Can God have counterfactual knowledge of a book that **was never **written, is not written and will never be written, but could have been written?

No! This would be knowledge of something that never existed, does not exist and will not exist - though could exist. It is included in the wording of the dogma, but it is complete nonsense. .

As a matter of fact non-existent objects cannot be subdivided into categories. There is no difference between a nonexistent book and a nonexistent billiard ball. There is no difference between a book which was never written by Hemingway and another one, which was never written by Faulkner. Nonexistence has no attributes.

God is not “living in the present” like you and I, though, since He created time and is outside of it.

This does not help you. You imagine God living in a permanently frozen, timeless existence. This, of course contradicts the notion of an active God, who is immersed in our time-infested, forever changing existence. It is a simple contradiction that God is both frozen and also active. Any action presupposes a change, and any change presupposes a time. Actually God was issuing “commands”, like “let there be light, and there was light”, which is a clear indication of an active “unfrozen” God (even if the words are just allegorical).

The point is that God being frozen “somewhere out there”, does not make him aware of our nonexistent future - because there is no “fixed” future. The image of the frozen God indicates that God “peeks” through a window, and sees the “film” of reality slowly “unfolding”. The usual picture that our whole past, present and future are somehow available for God for “inspection” is yet another contradiction. Not to mention that it negates the existence of any kind of free will. If the “future” already exists, then we have no freedom to act differently from what that already existing “future” indicates.

It is not a coincidence that we speak of “past, present and future”. That is reality. And as we already agreed, there is only one reality. There is no separate actual, physical reality, and another “divine” reality.

 

[Bahman]

I really do object to your continued use of the term " devices. " It makes it sound like we are nothing but a piece of machinery or some kind of computer. Catholics believe we are creatures created by God. We are real human beings, composed of a living body and soul. Perfectly reasonable. Have you bothered to read anything I suggested to you?

No, with God device I meant something more complex than a piece of machine. By device I mean a being that its action is known in all possible situations whether they come true or not. You can call it creature. Do you agree that our actions are known from God perspective for all situations? If yes, then this means that we cannot perform even one action which oppose God knowledge meaning that from God point view we are very well defined being, that we can call it either device or creature.

I would say you are absolutely wrong.

I would say that you are absolutely wrong. The creation in your point of view is a meaning less quality since its destiny is already known so creatures cannot contribute on their destinies as well. Why they could not contribute into their destinies, since they are a device (creature) and their action is known in all situations. That is in fact your problem that you need to explain how a person could have a free will if his/her action is known for all possible situations.

You are confused. I never mentioned suffering. But now that you do mention it, I would say we really don’t have a choice - with or without God. Suffering has been a fact of life for all humans from the beginning. Catholics would say that suffering is the result of sin, that of our first parents and our own. And by accepting it with humility there can be great spiritual benefit.

Based on your definition of God omniscience, God knew the fall of Satan, fall of Adam and Eve, every mistake we do etc. So the whole story is logically wrong since everything was known from starting by God. The question that I made and you evade is that why God should put its creatures in place of suffering having omniscience. Simple why cause suffering when you know the outcome.

God’s purpose for us in this life is to test us to see if we deserve an eternal reward.

God already know what is the result of test, doesn’t it? So story of test is meaningless and cannot be a purpose for life.

 

[jimmy]

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…

Scientific hypothesis always start with evidence, and make an attempt to explain that evidence. They are never a shot in the dark. They aren’t just thought experiments. A scientist sees a series of details about the object of study, and he makes a hypothesis that attempts to explain it. So to say a scientific hypothesis is unsubstantiated is false.

 

[jimmy]

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.

The problem is you use contingency wrong. The CC says that Gods existence and knowledge are not dependent on the created universe. His knowledge isn’t mediated by the universe. You said absolutely nothing that contradicts this. Instead you misappropriated a concept of silence or secrecy and used contingency in relation to that. Your argument really doesn’t say anything. If anything can be gleaned from it, it is that Gods knowledge is dependent upon his own revelation or his own action, which is kind of a nonsensical argument.

A second problem is that your arguments parameters don’t fit the definitions of what you are trying to disprove. You can prove anything when the parameters don’t fit. One of the problems is that, as the dogmatic definitions you quoted pointed out mention, Gods knowledge is infallible. Who’s to say you won’t do exactly what God predicts; after all that is exactly what infallible knowledge would imply? Maybe a coincidence would just force you to pick up the one God said you were going to pickup. An earthquake, an epileptic fit, sudden blindness (maybe due to a case of conversion disorder or something). Or maybe you will just decide to do what God said you were going to do.

 

[jimmy]

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.

If you want to prove something right or wrong, your argument must have the proper parameters. Otherwise you don’t prove anything. What your post implies is that you don’t care about the parameters, and consequently the truth - or lack of - of the argument doesn’t matter.

 

[Bahman]

The CC says that Gods existence and knowledge are not dependent on the created universe.

That is logically impossible. How God could create and sustain universe then?

Who’s to say you won’t do exactly what God predicts; after all that is exactly what infallible knowledge would imply?

Please read post #156.

 

[jimmy]

That is logically impossible. How God could create and sustain universe then?

Please read post #156.

How does Gods ability to create and sustain the universe depend on him being contingent on the universe? If I build guitars is my knowledge of guitars dependent on the guitar I haven’t built? It’s a nonsensical idea. If God created the universe from nothing, with no model external to himself, how can you say that his ability to create and sustain is dependent upon what he created?

I wrote 156 so what is your point? The parameters of bagheera’s argument don’t fit those of the definition of God according to the CC, so his argument doesn’t prove anything. But you jumped on the band wagon, despite the fact that his argument doesn’t make any sense. Your post implied that an insistence upon proper parameters (in this case the infallibility of God) is a laughable and irrational deflection of the argument. But since the argument ignores the infallibility of Gods knowledge (even though he quoted it as the basis of his argument), it proves nothing. If Gods knowledge is infallible, then his predictions will come true despite your wishes to the contrary. The argument disregards that fact, and then tries to prove God is contingent (with a faulty definition of contingent). A good argument would have had only one variable. Instead, there was the variable of contingency and the additional one of infallibility. It is like a poorly done scientific experiment, that proves nothing because the variables weren’t isolated.

 

[Bahman]

How does Gods ability to create and sustain the universe depend on him being contingent on the universe? If I build guitars is my knowledge of guitars dependent on the guitar I haven’t built? It’s a nonsensical idea. If God created the universe from nothing, with no model external to himself, how can you say that his ability to create and sustain is dependent upon what he created?

If you play your guitar then your knowledge of playing it is used in producing some sounds. The question is whether God intervene in its creation? If yes, then the knowledge of current state of creation is needed otherwise God cannot intervene in something it has no knowledge about.