What would be your reaction?

[MPat]

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).33. God’s knowledge is independent of extra-divine things
35. God knows all that is merely possible by the knowledge of simple intelligence (scientia simplicis intelligentiae). (De fide.)
36. God knows all real things in the past, the present and the future (Scientia visionis). (De fide.)
37. By knowledge of vision (scientia visionis) God also foresees the free acts of the rational creatures with infallible certainty. (De fide.)
38. 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.

Actually, there is a simple solution. You don’t even need God for that, a Mafia Hitman (H) will do. Please observe:

…
S: Simple. Just tell me the result.
H: Easy. You will not throw any dice.
S: Ha! Silly man… OK, look… Wait! I… I… I was joking! Have mercy!
Bang.
H: See? Didn’t I tell you?

That is one reason why there is a suggestion to avoid testing God by such “riddles”. There just might be a solution - the one you are not going to like…

Anyway, let’s say you’ll patch up the riddle in some way. It is still going to be unconvincing. Why? Let’s see how we can simplify it:

First, randomness from throwing the dice is irrelevant. The “riddle” is based on the choice of the dice, not result of the throw. Let’s remove it.

Second, having three dice is unnecessary. Just two will do. It’s not like you actually need the third one to make your point.

Third, colours are unnecessary. Let’s use just values “0” and “1”. That does not change your point.

Fourth, let’s look at one more statement:

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

In other words, we can replace you by a logical inverter (so much for “free will”) with latency. We can give it a predicted value from the set {0, 1} and it will give us the other one a bit later. The “riddle” is still to give the value that correctly predicts the answer.

Fifth, let’s remove the latency. We get a very simple “riddle”: “Choose the value x from the set {0, 1} such, that x = not x.”.

As you can see, it is a simple demand for a logical contradiction. As you know, God’s attributes do not include the ability to make logical contradictions true. That solves the “riddle”.

That doesn’t change just because you added lots of “smoke and mirrors” about “future”, “free will”, colours and dice…

 

[polytropos]

No, not until it will be actually written.

As I said before:

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.

Disputing the first point (that God has actual knowledge of a book that will be written) is just question begging. To say that God can only have knowledge of the present is just an assertion - and one which requires assuming that God is not eternal.

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.

Knowledge of what is possible is just knowledge of counterfactuals. It is knowledge of what would happen. God created everything and causes everything. As such He knows the nature of everything. Knowledge of what is possible implies that He understands how His creation behaves.

Besides you did not analyze the fourth possibility:

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. .

What distinguishes your fourth possibility from my third possibility?

In any case, I’m not claiming that God has the same sort of knowledge of counterfactuals that He has of actualities. God obviously knows what will become actual. He also knows what could become actual but won’t.

At this point you are just making assertions.

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.

But this is a straw man. I’m not claiming that there is a difference between two books that don’t exist right now. I am claiming that I can entertain the idea that a given author will write two distinct books, even if he only actually writes one of them. God, as timeless, can know absolutely about what is possible and what will be actual. There is no contradiction here. It doesn’t mean that God has knowledge of non-existent things or that non-existence has attributes.

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).

Honestly, you should stop asserting that whatever crosses your mind is an obvious contradiction. God does not change; it does not follow that God does not act (Pure Act of necessity cannot change and has causal efficacy).

You may be familiar with the Gish Gallop, which seems to be what you’re doing. We are no longer discussing your original thought experiment, because it is easily resolved; it can show nothing more than that it is logically impossible for God to reveal X if doing so would allow a free agent to contravene his revelation. So then you go on to just dispute whatever traditional aspects of God are brought up to resolve your paradox which wasn’t a paradox in the first place. But then, the whole point of thought experiments like this is to show that doctrines are contradictory, and when you can’t do that without begging the question against half a dozen doctrines, your thought experiment kind of loses its steam.

So if you want to discuss other “contradictions” in the Catholic conception of God, go ahead, make another topic.

 

[Back2Church]

I had a bigger post written up and something crapped out and I lost it. I don’t really feel like redoing the entire thing, so here’s the main part of the post:

Bagheera claims the thought experiment proves a contradiction within Catholic dogma:

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.

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

What this argument fails to recognize is that in order to invalidate God’s knowledge, the person needs God’s knowledge. This makes the person’s actions contingent on divine knowledge. The action cannot be performed before the person receives this divine knowledge, only after.

God’s knowledge depends on the actual result.
The actual result depends on the person’s action.
The person’s action depends on what God tells the person.
What God tells the person depends on God’s knowledge.
Therefore God’s knowledge depends on God’s knowledge.

God’s knowledge is not dependent on extra-divine things. God simply has all knowledge of extra-divine things. The only thing God’s knowledge is ultimately dependent on is Himself. Therefore Dogma #33 has not been contradicted.

So a statement like this:

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.

Can be implied as this:
“God’s knowledge is contingent upon God keeping it secret.”
or
“God’s knowledge is contingent upon God.”

No contradiction with dogma #33 here.

One might immediately say, "But in the very first line you said “God’s knowledge is dependent on the actual result,” and then you end with saying “God’s knowledge is not dependent on extra-divine things. That’s a contradiction!”

It definitely appears to be a contradiction on the surface, but it’s not. It’s simply a limitation with language. To say something like:

I say that God’s knowledge of our actions is **contingent **upon what we do.

is not very useful in itself. “God’s knowledge of our actions depends on our actions.” That’s like saying “The answer of 4 to the math problem 2 + 2 depends on the sum of 2 + 2.” The answer was 4 before the student adds 2 + 2 together. It was 4, it is 4, and it will always be 4. The reality of 4 being the sum of 2 + 2 did not come into existence when the first rational being figured out how to count and add. To say so is silly, because that would imply that 2 + 2 did not equal 4 until this primal mathematician caused it to be so.

In the same way we can say that God has all knowledge of extra-divine things. His knowledge is of everything and always has been.

If one insists that God’s knowledge of extra-divine things is dependent on those extra-divine things, because without those extra-divine things He would not have knowledge of them (only knowledge of the possibility of them), then it should be noted that this concept cannot be a source of contradiction for dogma #33. Obviously God cannot have knowledge of extra-divine things if those extra-divine things did not exists. He would have knowledge of their possibility, but not knowledge of their actuality.

But to claim this contradicts dogma #33 is to read something into this dogma that isn’t there. If this is the sense of dependence that dogma #33 was speaking about, then nothing could actually exist. Such an interpretation of this particular dogma only allows for God to have knowledge of possibilities and does not allow anything other than God to actually exists. Obviously the Catholic church does not believe in such an idea, so it can be understood that this is not the correct sense of the dogma. Therefore, dogma #33 is not contradicted.

At this point, I can foresee the objection of “How do you know what the sense of dependency in dogma #33 is intended to be? Perhaps you are wrong!” Indeed, a perfectly fine objection. The only way to answer it is to study the actual writings where this summarized dogma #33 is taken from. I’ll try to find the actual document(s) that establish(es) this dogma and post what I discover. Just don’t expect it any time soon, because I have kids, work, and tons of reading to do for school, so not very much free time.

 

[Bagheera]

Actually, there is a simple solution. You don’t even need God for that, a Mafia Hitman (H) will do. Please observe:
…
S: Simple. Just tell me the result.
H: Easy. You will not throw any dice.
S: Ha! Silly man… OK, look… Wait! I… I… I was joking! Have mercy!
Bang.
H: See? Didn’t I tell you?

That is one reason why there is a suggestion to avoid testing God by such “riddles”. There just might be a solution - the one you are not going to like…

Cute. So you compare God to a Mafia hit man. And you forget that one prerequisite was that God does not “mess” with the agent’s free will. As such your “solution” is worthless, since you changed the goalposts. Now, let’s examine the rest.

Anyway, let’s say you’ll patch up the riddle in some way. It is still going to be unconvincing. Why? Let’s see how we can simplify it:

First, randomness from throwing the dice is irrelevant. The “riddle” is based on the choice of the dice, not result of the throw. Let’s remove it.

Second, having three dice is unnecessary. Just two will do. It’s not like you actually need the third one to make your point.

Third, colours are unnecessary. Let’s use just values “0” and “1”. That does not change your point.

Up until this point the analysis is correct. The error comes in the next segment. All we need is a prediction of anything, and the freedom of the agent to either follow the prediction or not. No, this is not “smoke and mirrors”.

In other words, we can replace you by a logical inverter (so much for “free will”) with latency. We can give it a predicted value from the set {0, 1} and it will give us the other one a bit later. The “riddle” is still to give the value that correctly predicts the answer.

Oops! This is incorrect. We do live in reality, where there is a “delay” between the prediction and the action. That “latency” cannot be removed. The agent’s action is contingent upon the prediction - this is the fundamental point of the exercise. The agent’s freedom to choose either X or not-X cannot be eliminated. Your first “solution” is “better”. God gives the prediction. Agents decides to act differently but does not have the time to carry out his desire - BECAUSE: God smites the agent and throws him to hell for “disobedience”. (And the number one command is obedience.) God wins, and the agent gets what he “deserves”. God’s “glory” is intact… or is it?

Here is a very simple way to present the problem (no fluff at all):

B: Please make a prediction about my future action, where I can choose to perform either X or not-X.
G (as the catholics imagine him): Since there is no future for me, I can see (in this eternal now) that you will perform X.
B: Thank you. Now I made a decision to perform not-X. But I will actually wait until you answer this: What does your “eternal now” show?
G: Obviously, now it shows not-X.
B: Aha. So your “eternal, unchangeable now” has changed?
The “real” God (not the catholic misconception of him): Of course, since it was only the irrational assumption of the apologists, that I life in a frozen, unchanging environment. I am active and I make changes. How utterly boring it would be to be imprisoned in an eternal “stasis”. I would not impose such a cruel punishment on my worst enemy (if I had any enemies at all) I will let you go with an advice. I use my incredible intellect and foresee that choosing X will have the following consequences and choosing not-X will have these different consequences. From here you are on your own. Have fun!

 

[Paddy_Walker]

…
Here is a very simple way to present the problem (no fluff at all):

B: Please make a prediction about my future action, where I can choose to perform either X or not-X.
G (as the catholics imagine him): Since there is no future for me, I can see (in this eternal now) that you will perform X.
B: Thank you. Now I made a decision to perform not-X. But I will actually wait until you answer this: What does your “eternal now” show?
G: Obviously, now it shows not-X.
B: Aha. So your “eternal, unchangeable now” has changed?
The “real” God (not the catholic misconception of him): Of course, since it was only the irrational assumption of the apologists, that I life in a frozen, unchanging environment. I am active and I make changes. How utterly boring it would be to be imprisoned in an eternal “stasis”. I would not impose such a cruel punishment on my worst enemy (if I had any enemies at all) I will let you go with an advice. I use my incredible intellect and foresee that choosing X will have the following consequences and choosing not-X will have these different consequences. From here you are on your own. Have fun!

you remind me that this was actually tried and tested before;
Once upon a time God said to a man that he would go to a certain city and perform a certain task. The man said no thanks. And he set sail on a ship in the opposite direction.
Certainly when the storm hit the ship the crew threw him overboard and he was swallowed by a giant fish and carried back across the sea for three days until the fish spat him out on the shores of the city God told him he would go to. Obviously, mulling over things, the man changed his mind and continued into the city to finish off Gods prediction for him.

 

[Bagheera]

you remind me that this was actually tried and tested before;
Once upon a time God said to a man that he would go to a certain city and perform a certain task. The man said no thanks. And he set sail on a ship in the opposite direction.
Certainly when the storm hit the ship the crew threw him overboard and he was swallowed by a giant fish and carried back across the sea for three days until the fish spat him out on the shores of the city God told him he would go to. Obviously, mulling over things, the man changed his mind and continued into the city to finish off Gods prediction for him.

Do you ***really ***think that quoting a piece of folklore / mythology counts as a rational argument? Are you ***really ***that naïve?

 

[Bagheera]

God’s knowledge is not dependent on extra-divine things. God simply has all knowledge of extra-divine things. The only thing God’s knowledge is ultimately dependent on is Himself. Therefore Dogma #33 has not been contradicted.

Nonsense. Knowledge of the external reality MEANS to have a correct mental image of that external reality. In other words: “knowledge **reflects **the external reality”, which means that the reality is primary, the knowledge about it is secondary. It is getting very boring that I have to explain such elementary concepts. Of course you could argue (without any evidence at all) that the external reality is simply a figment of God’s imagination. We are simply acting out God’s dream. But that is not what the church teaches.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Nonsense. Knowledge of the external reality MEANS to have a correct mental image of that external reality. In other words: “knowledge **reflects **the external reality”, which means that the reality is primary, the knowledge about it is secondary. It is getting very boring that I have to explain such elementary concepts. Of course you could argue (without any evidence at all) that the external reality is simply a figment of God’s imagination. We are simply acting out God’s dream. But that is not what the church teaches.

What you say is correct until you get to God’s knowledge. How God knows all possible contingencies without them actually existing on earth is part of the mystery of God, who He is and His powers.

One time St. Augustine, while contemplating the mystery of the Incarnation, observed a child on the beach running back and forth between the ocean’s edge and the beach carrying a sea shell of water and dumping it into a hole on the beach. He stopped and asked the child what he was doing. The child responded that he was putting the ocean into the hole. Augustine laughed and said that it was impossible to do that. The child responded, " I will do that before you will ever be able to understand the mystery of the Incarnation. "

The child of course was Christ and he was teaching Augustine that no one will ever be able to understand the mysteries of God.

In the same way, neither you nor anyone else will ever be able to understand how God knows all possible contingencies.

Linus2nd

 

[Paddy_Walker]

Do you ***really ***think that quoting a piece of folklore / mythology counts as a rational argument? Are you ***really ***that naïve?

thats interesting because the story is about being rational. When all is going against you and you continue on your course you do need to think about whether what you are doing is rational or not…

 

[tonyrey]

1. The full implications of Omniscience cannot be understood unless one is omniscient.
2. Omniscience signifies knowledge of all events and possibilities - which is obviously a power which is beyond our understanding.
3. Claims to insight into divine knowledge are invalid because all descriptions of God are analogous.
4. There are aspects of science which are incomprehensible but no one accuses scientists of obscurity!
5. The assumption that all objects and events are restricted to space and time is an unverified and unverifiable hypothesis.
6. The assumption that knowledge implies causation overlooks the distinction between efficient and final causation
7. Logical possibility is not the same as rational possibility. Anything is logically possible but we do not live by useless theories…

 

[jimmy]

Do you ***really ***think that quoting a piece of folklore / mythology counts as a rational argument? Are you ***really ***that naïve?

Are you naive enough to think that your dialogue was a rational argument? As has been pointed out several times, there are multiple logical errors in your post.

 

[Bagheera]

What you say is correct until you get to God’s knowledge. How God knows all possible contingencies without them actually existing on earth is part of the mystery of God, who He is and His powers.

Such a cheap attempt. If I would ask about the ways and means of how God supposedly created the world out of nonexistence, then it would be correct answer to say: “we have no idea, it is a mystery”.

But this “excuse” does not apply to the question of knowledge. God’s knowledge may be much deeper, may be much more comprehensive than ours (no logical problem there), but it would still HAVE TO be an accurate mental image of reality. There is no “mystery” there. And whatever is not part of reality, cannot be “known”.

The usual cop-out, when presented with a problem, or when a nonsensical proposition is pointed out, or when your nose is rubbed into a contradiction of yours is always “it is a mystery”. No, it is not a “mystery”.

In the same way, neither you nor anyone else will ever be able to understand how God knows all possible contingencies.

But you assert that God DOES know all the possible contingencies? On what grounds? Do you have access to THAT part of "omniscience’?

Remember the kid in the tale, who kept of “crying wolf”, and when the wolf really showed up, he had no credibility left? You are in the same “boat”. You keep crying “mystery” all the time, when there is no “mystery” at all. And thus your credibility is pretty much down to “zilch” by now.

 

[Bahman]

What you say is correct until you get to God’s knowledge. How God knows all possible contingencies without them actually existing on earth is part of the mystery of God, who He is and His powers.

One time St. Augustine, while contemplating the mystery of the Incarnation, observed a child on the beach running back and forth between the ocean’s edge and the beach carrying a sea shell of water and dumping it into a hole on the beach. He stopped and asked the child what he was doing. The child responded that he was putting the ocean into the hole. Augustine laughed and said that it was impossible to do that. The child responded, " I will do that before you will ever be able to understand the mystery of the Incarnation. "

The child of course was Christ and he was teaching Augustine that no one will ever be able to understand the mysteries of God.

In the same way, neither you nor anyone else will ever be able to understand how God knows all possible contingencies.

Linus2nd

This should not be a mystery in your point of view since God knows decision made by each person in each situation. Universe also works deterministically in your point of view so its state could be project in future. This lead to a picture with different beings that its evolution could be easily be known/simulated so God could know the unique future very easy. The things however in this picture depends on initial state of creation.

I however have a problem with picture of free will in your point of view since I don’t think that God could know our decisions so the future state of universe depends on our actions too, so things do not solely depend on initial state of creation.

 

[Peebo]

There is one certainty that Bagheera and Bahman cannot argue…one day we will all die…for those of us who have believed in God we will be proven right and receive the gift of everlasting life…if it turns out that we were wrong then it won’t matter because we won’t know a thing about it…for those who by using their intellectual logic have deduced there is no God…they will have been proven right even though they won’t know a thing about it either…if they are proven wrong they will know about it…unfortunately for them their intellectual logic won’t save them from the fate that awaits them in eternity…either way…nothing will change the final outcome…the Bible says “only a fool says there is no God”.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

…

But this “excuse” does not apply to the question of knowledge. God’s knowledge may be much deeper, may be much more comprehensive than ours (no logical problem there), but it would still HAVE TO be an accurate mental image of reality. There is no “mystery” there. And whatever is not part of reality, cannot be “known”.

The usual cop-out, when presented with a problem, or when a nonsensical proposition is pointed out, or when your nose is rubbed into a contradiction of yours is always “it is a mystery”. No, it is not a “mystery”.

…

I see a problem here.

And whatever is not part of reality, cannot be “known”.

No, wait. No problem, if something doesn’t exist it doesn’t exist. Whats the problem?

 

[Bahman]

There is one certainty that Bagheera and Bahman cannot argue…

We can in fact argue on this too.

one day we will all die…

And what exactly happen when we die. Those who were Christian will have a new body and go to Heaven. What are you doing in Heaven? All mysteries become clear to you and you live with God in state of peace, love and harmony. This remind me the story of angles fall.

for those of us who have believed in God we will be proven right and receive the gift of everlasting life

And what is that God? To best of my knowledge there many state of believes each different from another, each have different God, and each promise the everlasting life with different type of gifts.

if it turns out that we were wrong then it won’t matter because we won’t know a thing about it

Why it wont matter for you but matter for others?

for those who by using their intellectual logic have deduced there is no God
they will have been proven right even though they won’t know a thing about it either…if they are proven wrong they will know about it…unfortunately for them their intellectual logic won’t save them from the fate that awaits them in eternity

First, you can’t prove God nor disprove it. A defined God and creation however have to be consistent. The conflict of omniscience and free will which is subject of this thread is only one example.

…either way…nothing will change the final outcome

Either way, we are responsible for our fate and we can change it. To do so we have to first be critical on God we accepted as absolute truth, then creation including ourselves, otherwise we fall in trap of one belief as other fall in another trap each person thinks that she/he knows the absolute truth.

…the Bible says “only a fool says there is no God”.

I don’t think if God has such feeling and thought toward those who don’t believe God

 

[Paddy_Walker]

This should not be a mystery in your point of view since God knows decision made by each person in each situation. …

But we’re not God and neither are you… quantum electrodynamics should not be a mystery because God designed it but it is a mystery to you and me.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Such a cheap attempt. If I would ask about the ways and means of how God supposedly created the world out of nonexistence, then it would be correct answer to say: “we have no idea, it is a mystery”.

No slight of hand at all. The simple truth. And you are right, we don’t know how God created the world out of nothing. We just know the world could not have created itself. And even if we postulate an eternally existing world, all that would mean is that God would have had to have been eternally creating the world. I think it is much " easier, " mentally, to envision a world created at a unique moment out of nothing.

But this “excuse” does not apply to the question of knowledge. God’s knowledge may be much deeper, may be much more comprehensive than ours (no logical problem there), but it would still HAVE TO be an accurate mental image of reality. There is no “mystery” there. And whatever is not part of reality, cannot be “known”.

It is no " excuse " at all and it certainly does apply to knowledge. God could not have created any world unless he had Omniscience in regard to all possible contingencies. Rather than God’s " mental image " mirroring reality, the real situation is that reality mirrors the idea ( image ) God has of reality, at least that part of it he chooses to create and/or allow. And whatever is not a part of reality cannot be known by man. It is known by God, however. It is real to him. It is possible and contingent only to us.

The usual cop-out, when presented with a problem, or when a nonsensical proposition is pointed out, or when your nose is rubbed into a contradiction of yours is always “it is a mystery”. No, it is not a “mystery”.

Sorry you take it that way. It was not meant to be a " cop out. " It is a contradiction only to those who lack Faith. Remember, we are not required to prove it you or any one else. Indeed, that would be impossible. It is contradictory to you because you do not have Faith. Remember that I said that Divine Logic trumphs human logic. We are the created, we are not Divine. Do you really expect humans to understand these things? Yes, these things are mysteries, because, while true, they are beyond our comprehension.

You do not yet understand everything about the universe and never will, not even 1% of it. How in the world can you expect to understand God?

But you assert that God DOES know all the possible contingencies? On what grounds? Do you have access to THAT part of "omniscience’?

On the basis of Faith, grounded on Divine Revelation. I told you that up front. We have access to the fact of God’s Omniscience through Divine Revelation.

Remember the kid in the tale, who kept of “crying wolf”, and when the wolf really showed up, he had no credibility left? You are in the same “boat”. You keep crying “mystery” all the time, when there is no “mystery” at all. And thus your credibility is pretty much down to “zilch” by now.

Again, we may have no credibility with you but many continue to come to the Faith each day and have done so for about 5,000 years now. We do our best but of course many never respond to the grace God gives them.

Linus2nd.

 

[Bahman]

But we’re not God and neither are you… quantum electrodynamics should not be a mystery because God designed it but it is a mystery to you and me.

What you are adding or proving with your argument? What was said was a simple explanation showing that in the state of belief that God is aware of decision made by his creature, the future could be known from God preservative given the initial condition of creation in deterministic way. In another word, everything from God point of view is known in deterministic way which is what you believe. There is no room is left for God’s creatures in this point of view, since everybody fates is defined by the initial condition of creation. We however have serious objection on this point of view since we believe God would leave some room for his creatures so a creature could at least change his/her fate and that requires a redefinition of free will in which God does not know the outcome of decision made with a creature, otherwise we fall in the previous trap meaning that we have no control on our fates.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

This should not be a mystery in your point of view since God knows decision made by each person in each situation.

It is a mystery in the sense that I have no more understanding of how this can be than you do. I just know that it is so.

Universe also works deterministically in your point of view so its state could be project in future.

Not at all. It is true that God is guiding all creation to the end he has in mind for it and he does this through the laws and powers he has created in their natures. But when his intelligent creatures are involved, there is nothing " deterministic " about their actions. They are free to act as they choose. But God has made allowances for our disobedience and failures. His Plan will Infallibly be completed according to his Will.

This lead to a picture with different beings that its evolution could be easily be known/simulated so God could know the unique future very easy. The things however in this picture depends on initial state of creation.

If one accepts the theory of evolution you are correct. God is guiding evolution to the ends he has in mind. Not quite sure what you mean by saying, " The things however in this picture depends on initial state of creation. " It may seem rather confused to us, but God’s Plan is effective from the very moment of creation ( in whatever " confused " state this may have been.). .

I however have a problem with picture of free will in your point of view since I don’t think that God could know our decisions so the future state of universe depends on our actions too, so things do not solely depend on initial state of creation.

I realize you are having a problem. Its a matter of Faith and you don’t have it. But you have to admit, to those who have Faith it makes sense. Our Faith is based on Divine Revelation and we know that God does not lie. It makes sense to us to believe what he has revealed of himself.

Linus2nd