Spirituality
14 Feb 09
04 Mar 09
1 edit
When I was a young parent, I was anxious that my children would know all kinds of things about the world around them. So I was always like an encyclopedia to them relating to them all kinds of information so that they would be well informed.
One day I took them for a ride on a subway. I began to tell them about the third rail on the subway track. I told them that it was very dangerous because it had electricity running through it. I thought I was keeping them well informed.
They began to be anxious and afraid. I realized that I was filling their minds with "premature knowledge". There was no reason for me to scare them about touching the third rail on the subay track. It was a premature concern that would not serve them at that time.
Then I realized that it is the same with God and man. God knows a lot of course, even everything. He has not chosen to tell us everything. At least He has His own timing as to when we should know something.
So God has withheld some information that in His wisdom He deems perhaps as premature knowledge.
This passage has become meaningful to me.
The things that are hidden belong to Jehovah our God; but the things that are revealed, to us and our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law." (Deut. 29:29)
God has revealed by revelation many things to us. But He has not revealed everything. He has hidden some things. He doesn't forbide us to try to find out those things. But He has not helped us to know by revelation.
Now what He has told us is that we may trust Him and obey Him. The things revealed are that we and our children may obey Him in His will.
Like a wise Father, the heavenly Father, deems what is important for us to know in order to secure our cooperation, trust, obedience, faith, and love of God.
The knowledge He imparts to us by revelation is designed to make us dependent upon Him and not independent from Him. That is for our own wellbeing.
04 Mar 09
3 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI am not saying at any point that knowledge has some determining impact. I have repeated that several times now. The following is a flat logical contradiction:
There exists no logical contradiction between knowledge and action, as they are neither from the same group or in opposition.
Your formula does not depend upon (1) in any meaningful way to conclude that contradiction occurs. If it did, then anyone's] knowledge of past action would have the same affect... which it doesn't.
Action already commi t on our future actions, but it remains our free will to make such determinations on our own.
(1) S knows infallibly that E will occur;
(2) Nevertheless, E might not occur.
If (2) is true, then S cannot infallibly know.
You are also wrong about the Horses/Gertrude example. In logic, a valid deductive inference and a true deductive inference are not the same thing. That is a valid deduction; it is not true. It is valid because it adheres to the logical formulation “If p, then q; p; therefore q”—which holds for any p or q (modus ponens). For a claim to be true, it must first be logically valid; however, a logically valid claim may turn out to be false. A claim that takes the form “If p, then q; p; therefore not-q [~q]” is logically contradictory, and cannot be true for any p or q.
The point is that an invalid deductive inference doesn’t even get off the ground. It is contradictory for any p or q. The inference containing (1) and (2) above is invalid (logically contradictory) for any event E—including E = “I will choose X”.
04 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadOkay. As I noted, I am not dealing with how the universe works, only with logically contradictory claims. The following—
I would. For me it is a question of how the universe works. Are events in the universe entirely deterministic (and thus result in only one possible future for a given starting condition) or are there random or external inputs that affect the universe.
The other, much harder to tackle issue, is whether or not we can consider the future to exist (or the pa ...[text shortened]... do X or ~X so what does it mean to say that the option of ~(whatever you do) is still available?
(1) P knows infallibly that E will occur;
(2) Nevertheless, E might not occur.
—is logically contradictory for any E in any single future (or universe). It is simply a logically invalid statement.
If there is any universe in which one could say “If p, then q; p; therefore ~q”—well, then that is a universe about which we cannot speak (think) sensibly at all.
You and I are just addressing two different questions.
04 Mar 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBH….That's the funny thing about desire: it can't really be seen, per se, and yet it is often times blatantly obvious. At other times, it can remain more subtle. Whether overt or latent, while desire isn't a tangible substance, it is what drives people's action.
[b]I am strangely unaware of this particular “intense desire” you speak of -I don’t think I have never seen it.
That's the funny thing about desire: it can't really be seen, per se, and yet it is often times blatantly obvious. At other times, it can remain more subtle. Whether overt or latent, while desire isn't a tangible substance, it is what driv ...[text shortened]... h in relation to the present time.
that’s pretty vague.
So is this conversation.[/b]
..…
How would you POSSIBLY know all this!!!? 😛
Are you a psychologist that has done some actual research into “subconscious desires”?
I doubt that even the psychologists can really know about what is going on in our subconscious so exactly what on earth makes you think you know all about it!? -neither you nor I can know about what is going in our OWN subconscious let alone other peoples!!! This is because, generally, if you were directly aware of something going on in your “subconscious” then it wouldn’t be part of your “subconscious” now would it!
04 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillThat might lead to fruitful discussion for those who are looking at it from a “foreknowledge versus freedom/determinism” point of view—but those are not at all the issues I am concerned with here. I am only concerned with the question of logical contradiction, which is why I removed both God and choice from my last two posts: I thought perhaps that might lend some clarity.
Question to all those concerned about Divine foreknowledge or predestination:
What [b]specific event in your life are you sure that God knows with infallibility, such that you have NO CHOICE in the matter ?
Please be specific and not general.[/b]
For any person P, and any event E, the following is logically contradictory:
(1) P knows infallibly that E will occur;
(2) It is possible that E will not occur.
The possibility postulated in (2) violates the infallibility postulated in (1). In other words, the conjunction of (1) and (2) entails a logical contradiction. Again, for any P, for any E (including E = “I will choose X” ).
Now, if someone thinks I am wrong, all they have to do is demonstrate some condition under which E does not occur, even though P “infallibly knows that E will occur”, without rendering P’s knowledge fallible rather than infallible.
05 Mar 09
2 edits
Originally posted by vistesdI understand your point. I wasn't responding to it directly.
That might lead to fruitful discussion for those who are looking at it from a “foreknowledge versus freedom/determinism” point of view—but those are not at all the issues I am concerned with here. I am only concerned with the question of logical contradiction, which is why I removed both God and choice from my last two posts: I thought perhaps that might l ...[text shortened]... nows that E will occur”, without rendering P’s knowledge fallible rather than infallible.
==================================
Question to all those concerned about Divine foreknowledge or predestination:
What specific event in your life are you sure that God knows with infallibility, such that you have NO CHOICE in the matter ?
Please be specific and not general.
========================================
I was interested in someone proving that this ability of God coerced or is coercing them in any way.
So far no one has admitted to it.
05 Mar 09
4 edits
Originally posted by jaywillOne shouldn't need to be specific. Logic alone proves that infallible foreknowledge of action A and libertarian freedom to do action A cannot both exist.
I understand your point. I wasn't responding to it directly.
[b]==================================
Question to all those concerned about Divine foreknowledge or predestination:
What specific event in your life are you sure that God knows with infallibility, such that you have NO CHOICE in the matter ?
Please be specific and not general.
== ...[text shortened]... f God coerced or [b]is coercing them in any way.
So far no one has admitted to it.[/b][/b]
If a person can shrug off a logical contradiction, and just believe contradictory claims, then no amount of specific examples will convince them, either.
Edit: This, and other threads, have had several specific examples. Peter's denial of Jesus. My move Qd2 that will lose the game. My drinking tea at 11am tomorrow.
05 Mar 09
Originally posted by vistesdI do not question your logic but I do question whether or not your argument can even be meaningfully applied to the universe. Is it meaningful to say (2)"E might not occur".
Okay. As I noted, I am not dealing with how the universe works, only with logically contradictory claims. The following—
(1) P knows infallibly that E will occur;
(2) Nevertheless, E might not occur.
—is logically contradictory for any E in any single future (or universe). It is simply a logically invalid statement.
If there is any universe i ...[text shortened]... we cannot speak (think) sensibly at all.
You and I are just addressing two different questions.
There is a distinction between:
a) we do not know what will happen next.
and
b) more than one possible future exists. ie E or ~E might occur.
05 Mar 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf there is one future in which E occurs, and one future in which ~E occurs, then the probability of E occurring is 1, and the probability of ~E occurring is 1—albeit each in their own future—so that to say “it is possible that…” is meaningless, with respect to any future?
I do not question your logic but I do question whether or not your argument can even be meaningfully applied to the universe. Is it meaningful to say (2)"E might not occur".
There is a distinction between:
a) we do not know what will happen next.
and
b) more than one possible future exists. ie E or ~E might occur.
As opposed to one and only one future, in which either E or ~E will occur? (In the latter case, I think the logic does apply, and use of the phrase “it is/is not possible that…” can just be a recognition of relative probabilities, whether one can calculate them or not. The point being, even the possibility—i.e. some positive probability, however slight, that ~E might occur in that singular future, contradicts the infallibility condition.)
Have I got what you’re saying to that point? I just want to make sure before going on…
05 Mar 09
Originally posted by vistesdA deductive argument is valid only if its conclusion follows necessarily from its premise.
I am not saying at any point that knowledge has some determining impact. I have repeated that several times now. The following is a flat logical contradiction:
(1) S knows infallibly that E will occur;
(2) Nevertheless, E might not occur.
If (2) is true, then S cannot infallibly know.
You are also wrong about the Hors ...[text shortened]... ove is invalid (logically contradictory) for any event E—including E = “I will choose X”.
05 Mar 09
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBH"An argument is valid if it is impossible for the premises to all be true and, at the same time, the conclusion false." (The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy)
A deductive argument is valid only if its conclusion follows necessarily from its premise.
Either way, the following is invalid:
(1) P knows infallibly that E will occur;
(2) E will not occur.
It is impossible for (1) [premise] to be true, and (2) [conclusion] to be true; it is a logical contradiction. And, as I stated it previously, even the statement “(2) it is possible that E will not occur” violates the infallibility statement of the premise, and hence makes an invalid argument.
However, I still need to consider what twhitehead is saying…
05 Mar 09
Originally posted by vistesdI think the issue here is--- again--- the timing as well as the level of knowledge. For us, some things might happen and some things might not happen.
If there is one future in which E occurs, and one future in which ~E occurs, then the probability of E occurring is 1, and the probability of ~E occurring is 1—albeit each in their own future—so that to say “it is possible that…” is meaningless, with respect to any future?
As opposed to one and only one future, in which either E or ~E will ...[text shortened]... on.)
Have I got what you’re saying to that point? I just want to make sure before going on…
For God, the past, present and future are all one, comprehensive unit. What is still a possibility for us is just as "set in stone" to God as the past is for us.
And, while you contend that knowledge isn't part of the equation, it most certainly is being used in your formula. However, instead of knowledge, you are substituting action--- action that is known prior to the action taking place in contrast to alternative action that might take place. This leads to the contradiction.