What would be your reaction?

[Hypnotoad]

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. **

I think this is the major issue I have with this dialogue because this reply assumes this is the only answer God could give. God could very well reply:

S: Can you prove it?
G: To you? No.
S: Why not?
G: Because you could not comprehend the answer.
S: Why not?
G: Quis ut Deus
S: Well I don’t like that answer. I want to know things as God knows them.
G: Yeah Eve had the same problem.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

Others claim to know things as God knows them.

 

[Bagheera]

Against the “rules”? What “rules”?

Read it here. Fifth line from the top: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2801887&postcount=3 (Don’t answer a question with a question. If you don’t know the answer, say so. )

Yes, you did restate your “riddle” in a more simple way. I am claiming that it is possible to state it in an even more simple way and that both “freedom” and “eternal, unchanging now” can be dispensed with.

And that is the problem. The whole point is the contradiction emerging from claiming that “free will” and “omniscience” are compatible. You cannot eliminate both free will and omniscience and say that it is still the same problem.

In a sense you are correct. There is a contradiction, but it is not the “riddle” itself, it is the assumption that free will and omniscience are compatible. That is the problem, which is simply highlighted by the problem as properly stated (and not the castrated version you created. ).

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Read it here. Fifth line from the top: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2801887&postcount=3 (Don’t answer a question with a question. If you don’t know the answer, say so. )

And that is the problem. The whole point is the contradiction emerging from claiming that “free will” and “omniscience” are compatible. You cannot eliminate both free will and omniscience and say that it is still the same problem.

In a sense you are correct. There is a contradiction, but it is not the “riddle” itself, it is the assumption that free will and omniscience are compatible. That is the problem, which is simply highlighted by the problem as properly stated (and not the castrated version you created. ).

I’m sorry you can’t see that they are compatible. The fact is though that you can’t put either God or man in a box, the box being your particular ideology. And it is an ideology, it is not Psychology, Psychology doesn’t talk about God.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

I’m sorry you can’t see that they are compatible. The fact is though that you can’t put either God or man in a box, the box being your particular ideology. And it is an ideology, it is not Psychology, Psychology doesn’t talk about God.

Linus2nd

They are not compatible as I mentioned in post #192 that you didn’t provide an feedback to it. God omniscience as I mentioned lead to determinism.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Creation behaves in deterministic manner from God point of view and as a result is deterministic from everybody point of view who believe on omniscience of God in strong form, meaning that God knows actions of beings in all given situations. I don’t quite understand your logic, in one hand you say that God knows how the creation evolves from eternity to eternity. This knowledge is not dependent on our actions since God knows our actions in every situations. This lead to a picture of creation that God could easily in deterministic manner know the evolution of creation since the only sole variable that could change the deterministic picture is our free will which is deterministic from God point of view.

And we disagree with your assessment.

I meant that any stage of creation could be predicted from initial condition of creation since God knows the actions of all being in given situation. This leads to a deterministic picture as I described.

We disagee with your analysis.

I understand your point about the faith but a faith has to be consistent with logic. All I am saying is the omniscience of God leads to a deterministic picture, whether you like it or not.

God’s Omniscience does not make man’s decisions deterministic, if you accept our definition of God’s Nature. We have gone over and over that point. You do not accept it, I didn’t expect you to. We will have to agree to disagree.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Sorry, this is exactly what all the snake-oil peddlers say to those they bamboozle into buying their “product”… “You need faith! You must trust me!”

I am not a snake oil salesman, neither is God.

There is no “divine” logic. There is only one logic, and it is very simple.

1. A == A - everything is itself. (The law of identity)
2. A and not-A is always false. (The law of non-contradiction)
3. A or not-A is always true. (The law of excluded middle).
   And “usually” it is asserted that not even God can violate these laws

God’s life and Nature is not subject to our weak human intellects. Divine Logic trumphs human logic. .

I am perfectly well qualified to understand what people **believe **and **say **about God. I can discern if their assertions are contradictory, and no amount of repetition will change those contradictions into “mysteries”.

Ditto vis a’ vis your continued repetitions. You cannot prove we are wrong.

Where and when did this ***PUBLIC ***divine revelation happened? I would like to see a set of independent proofs for that. And I mean ***REAL ***evidence…

You know the answer to that. Have you bothered to read the Bible, the history of Judaism and Christianity as I requested, have you bothered to read Thomas Aquinas ( not commentators ) as I suggested. This shouldn’t be much of a job for a physicist. But you have to read these things with an open mind. When you finish, you will believe as we do ( only, when you read the Bible, skip the geneologies, that will make even your head swim.)

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

They are not compatible as I mentioned in post #192 that you didn’t provide an feedback to it. God omniscience as I mentioned lead to determinism.

There, I have answered that post. And I have been answering it from the beginning.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

And we disagree with your assessment.

You disagree because it has a conflict with what you believe. You need to clearly say which part of the assessment is wrong. Can I ask a simple question to you? Does God know what are you going to do when you are reading my post?

 

[Bagheera]

I am not a snake oil salesman, neither is God.

You ACT exactly like them, demanding “faith” and “trust”. I give you the benefit of doubt, and I accept that you actually believe in what you peddle, but then, many snake-oil peddlers do. You demand “faith” in the existence of angels, demons, ghosts and a whole lot of assorted nonsensical stories, miraculous resurrections, etc… without one iota a actual physical evidence. It is all at least “second-hand hearsay”. And you should know that second-hand hearsay “evidence” inadmissible in the court of law - because it is utterly unreliable. I do not expect different kind of evidence for your claims, only the same kind for every type of claim. And the result is “Mene, tekel, ufarsin” - you have been investigated and found wanting.

You know the answer to that. Have you bothered to read the Bible, the history of Judaism and Christianity as I requested, have you bothered to read Thomas Aquinas ( not commentators ) as I suggested. This shouldn’t be much of a job for a physicist. But you have to read these things with an open mind. When you finish, you will believe as we do ( only, when you read the Bible, skip the geneologies, that will make even your head swim.)

The bible does not qualify as “revelation”. It is just a collection of unbelievable stories written by mostly unknown authors. Are the writings of Aquinas considered “revelations”? That is news to me.

 

[Origen52]

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.

I come late to the game, but I never could ignore a syllogism.
So here’s my reply to the scenario you have delineated.

Your premise is that this being with whom you are interacting is the God revealed to man through the Bible, not the concept of God available to man through intellect alone.

Your dialogue tries to prove that the Biblical God, unlimited by time and space, only knows the future as long as she does not reveal that future to you.

But, a God outside of time is able to see all events as now. Therefore, there would be no point at which God would not be able to know what you would do next. This would not limit your ability to act in a free manner, but it would make it impossible for you to invalidate God’s knowledge of the future by random actions performed in time.

Furthermore, by claiming that an infinte God’s knowledge of the future is “conditional” on anything, you violate one of the attributes contained in the term “infinte.” Therefore, the God you postulate is not “infinte” but “finite”. Her knowledge of all would be limited. Once this God reveals the future to you, you can act differently, thereby nullifying her ability to know the future.

The error in your premise is that an infinte, onmiscient God would reply:

G: Nope. If I would do that, you would have an “updated” version of the future, and you could use that information again.

To the question, can you prove it.

The reply of the God described by Catholic Dogma would be a total, instant knowledge of everything you would ever do.

What you are trying to prove is that in a game of wits, you would be able to **surprise **an infinite God, with a temporal string of logic. But the God of Catholic Dogma would know the totality of all you say, even before your birth.

Your premise postulates that:

God says you will do A.

You do B, therefore, God’s knowledge of your future actions are dependent on her not revealing the future to you.

The flaw in your argument is that the God of Catholic Dogma would say A.

An infinite, omniscient God knows the totality of temporal history as a whole, not as a series of temporal events, therefore, her reply would never be limited by the temporality of events.

Your “trick” would only work on a God who inhabited the same linear time as you. Such a limited God would not be the God described by Catholic Dogma.

 

[Origen52]

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.

I come late to the game, but I never could ignore a syllogism.
So here’s my reply to the scenario you have delineated.

Your premise is that this being with whom you are interacting is the God revealed to man through the Bible, not the concept of God available to man through intellect alone. For your stated purpose in presenting this dialogue is that it proves that the concept of God presented by Catholic Dogma is contradictory.
Since there was no disagreement about the link to the divine attributes as described in the dogmas, we can go on

Your dialogue tries to prove that the Biblical God, unlimited by time and space, only knows the future as long as she does not reveal that future to you.

But, a God outside of time is able to see all events as now. Therefore, there would be no point at which God would not be able to know what you would do next. This would not limit your ability to act in a free manner, but it would make it impossible for you to invalidate God’s knowledge of the future by random actions performed in time.

Furthermore, by claiming that an infinite God’s knowledge of the future is “conditional” on anything, you violate one of the attributes contained in the term “infinite.” Therefore, the God you postulate is not “infinite” but “finite”. Her knowledge of all would be limited. Once this God reveals the future to you, you can act differently, thereby nullifying her ability to know the future.

The error in your premise is that an infinite, omniscient God would reply:

G: Nope. If I would do that, you would have an “updated” version of the future, and you could use that information again.

To the question, can you prove it.

The reply of the God described by Catholic Dogma would be a total, instant knowledge of everything you would ever do.

What you are trying to prove is that in a game of wits, you would be able to **surprise **an infinite God, with a temporal string of logic. But the God of Catholic Dogma would know the totality of all you say, even before your birth.

Your premise postulates that:

God says you will do A.

 

[Jaaanosik]

We are afraid that the concept of omniscience leads to determinism following the below argument:

1. God does know all states of creation from eternity to eternity.
2. This means, given creation in a given instant God does know what would be the state of creation in later instant.
3. Determinism means that every state of creation is the inevitable consequence of antecedent state of creation.
4. Summing premises 3 and 4 one could conclude that creation evolves in deterministic way from God point of view since otherwise it conflicts with omniscience of God.

Yes, God knows.
How does it changes your free will what to have for dinner?

Don’t mix up God’s point of view and your point of view.

 

[MPat]

Read it here. Fifth line from the top: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2801887&postcount=3 (Don’t answer a question with a question. If you don’t know the answer, say so. )

Ah, you meant those. But I don’t think it meant that kind of “answering a question with a question.”. It doubt that responding (“answering” - but not in the sense of “providing the answer”) with a question asking for clarification is ruled out…

And that is the problem. The whole point is the contradiction emerging from claiming that “free will” and “omniscience” are compatible. You cannot eliminate both free will and omniscience and say that it is still the same problem.

In a sense you are correct. There is a contradiction, but it is not the “riddle” itself, it is the assumption that free will and omniscience are compatible. That is the problem, which is simply highlighted by the problem as properly stated (and not the castrated version you created. ).

I am not sure that is true. First of all, of course, it depends on the definition of “free will” (and on definition of “omniscience”, although I am not going to concentrate on that). Let’s look at the definition you have given:

1. The usual definition is composed of 3 parts:

• There is someone who wishes to achieve some goal.
• There are at least two ways to achieve that goal.
• The locus of decision is with the person, whose decision is not determined by outside forces. (The decision might be influenced, but not determined)

Now let’s look at the “riddle”. We have “S”, who wants to achieve some goal (to output “0” or “1”). We have two ways to achieve the goal (to output “0” and to output “1”). But it sure looks like the decision of “S” is determined by the (name removed by moderator)ut (prediction): if the (name removed by moderator)ut is “0”, “S” will give the output “1” and vice versa. Otherwise, there is no problem to solve. So, is “S” actually using such “free will” in this scenario? I’d say that he is not. And that because of that this scenario is not very useful while arguing about compatibility between “free will” and “omniscience”.

Of course, if we chose a different definition (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/freewill/ - lists more than one), things might change. Still, as you might note, your scenario is not the one listed in plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2011/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/ (“Foreknowledge and Free Will”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2011 Edition))…

 

[Linusthe2nd]

They are not compatible as I mentioned in post #192 that you didn’t provide an feedback to it. God omniscience as I mentioned lead to determinism.

Friend, I don’t need to prove it to you or anyone else. It is based on Faith in Divine Revelation. Nonesense to non-believers, meat and potatos to believers. We know who God is and his Nature, you do not. You are peaking in the window, we have been living in the house all our lives ( some of us ). Sorry you don’t believe. It is not something you can reach through human logic of any kind. First one accepts Divine Revelation, and there solid historical reasons for that, then one believes God because he cannot lie. But one has to respond to the grace of belief.

Pslm 139
139 O Lord, You have searched me and known me.
2 You know [a]when I sit down and **when I rise up;
You understand my thought from afar.
3 You [c]scrutinize my [d]path and my lying down,
And are intimately acquainted with all my ways.
4 [e]Even before there is a word on my tongue,
Behold, O Lord, You know it all.
5 You have enclosed me behind and before,
And laid Your hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me;
It is too high, I cannot attain to it.

7 Where can I go from Your Spirit?
Or where can I flee from Your presence?
8 If I ascend to heaven, You are there;
If I make my bed in [f]Sheol, behold, You are there.
9 If I take the wings of the dawn,
If I dwell in the remotest part of the sea,
10 Even there Your hand will lead me,
And Your right hand will lay hold of me.
11 If I say, “Surely the darkness will [g]overwhelm me,
And the light around me will be night,”
12 Even the darkness is not dark [h]to You,
And the night is as bright as the day.
Darkness and light are alike to You.

13 For You formed my *inward parts;
You wove me in my mother’s womb.
14 I will give thanks to You, for [j]I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Wonderful are Your works,
And my soul knows it very well.
15 My [k]frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth;
16 Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;
And in Your book were all written
The days that were ordained for me,
When as yet there was not one of them.

…

Linus2nd***

 

[Bagheera]

I am not sure that is true. First of all, of course, it depends on the definition of “free will” (and on definition of “omniscience”, although I am not going to concentrate on that). Let’s look at the definition you have given:

I use the definition of free will as you quoted. I am interested in the aspect of omniscience which says: “God has knowledge of the future events before they occur”. Of course I already made this abundantly clear before. The catholic argument is that God “dwells” in an “eternal and unchanging now”, that our future decisions are already available to him, before we make those decisions. This is the scenario. So far you did not address it.

Now let’s look at the “riddle”. We have “S”, who wants to achieve some goal (to output “0” or “1”). We have two ways to achieve the goal (to output “0” and to output “1”). But it sure looks like the decision of “S” is determined by the (name removed by moderator)ut (prediction): if the (name removed by moderator)ut is “0”, “S” will give the output “1” and vice versa.

That is NOT the scenario, not even close. What the agent is interested in is to receive a prediction about his free, future action. When the agent receives the prediction, he is free to either comply with the prediction, or act against it. The agent has not used his free will at the time this conversation takes place. The question is: “what happens to that ‘unchanging, eternal now’ where God resides?”.

The problem arises if we accept that God’s “eternal, unchanging now” is correct, because in this case we do not have freedom to make a different decision. It is only an illusion that we are “free” to act differently. On the other hand, if we are truly able to act differently, then God’s “eternal, unchanging now” is not “unchanging”, it is contingent upon our future decision. If we keep oscillating between choosing “X” and “not-X”, then God’s “knowledge” is also “flip-flopping”. And this is the contradiction that cannot be resolved.

 

[Jaaanosik]

I use the definition of free will as you quoted. I am interested in the aspect of omniscience which says: “God has knowledge of the future events before they occur”. Of course I already made this abundantly clear before. The catholic argument is that God “dwells” in an “eternal and unchanging now”, that our future decisions are already available to him, before we make those decisions. This is the scenario. So far you did not address it.

That is NOT the scenario, not even close. What the agent is interested in is to receive a prediction about his free, future action. When the agent receives the prediction, he is free to either comply with the prediction, or act against it. The agent has not used his free will at the time this conversation takes place. The question is: “what happens to that ‘unchanging, eternal now’ where God resides?”.

The problem arises if we accept that God’s “eternal, unchanging now” is correct, because in this case we do not have freedom to make a different decision. It is only an illusion that we are “free” to act differently. On the other hand, if we are truly able to act differently, then God’s “eternal, unchanging now” is not “unchanging”, it is contingent upon our future decision. If we keep oscillating between choosing “X” and “not-X”, then God’s “knowledge” is also “flip-flopping”. And this is the contradiction that cannot be resolved.

Bagheera,
Please, stop this nonsense.
If you want God to tell you what you are going to do you are dragging Him from outside of the timespace into the timespace.
The definitions 33, 35, … would not apply in that case.
That’s were your logic breaks.

 

[Qoeleth]

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.)

Such a scenario would be good. I would continue to believe, even more so. It’s post-modern, even Dada, to believe things which are logically mpossible.

Logic and science are simply historical artefacts of the Rationalist period, discourses to be picked up or disregarded as one wishes, an empty language game to played by children calling to each other in the market place.

 

[Bagheera]

If you want God to tell you what you are going to do you are dragging Him from outside of the timespace into the timespace.

Last time I heard there was a story that God used to “mingle” among us in that mythology book called the bible. Also another story about some \one called “Jesus”, who was also supposed to be both human and “God”. Of course, if you believe that this is just an unsupported fairy tale, that is quite ok by me.

 

[Bagheera]

Such a scenario would be good. I would continue to believe, even more so. It’s post-modern, even Dada, to believe things which are logically mpossible.

The old saying of Tertullian: “Credo quia absurdum est” is supposed to be apocryphal, though its meaning definitely describes the believer mentality.

Logic and science are simply historical artefacts of the Rationalist period, discourses to be picked up or disregarded as one wishes, an empty language game to played by children calling to each other in the market place.

I would be delighted to see someone actually live according this “philosophy”… though they would not live very long.