| Satria |
| Posted 04/20/12 at 09:23 PM | Reply with quote #1 |
|
| Greeting Philosopher,
I need to hear your comment dealing with this promising theory, Middle Knowledge, specifically, with respect to Adam and Eve case.
Given possible worlds, say U1: Under Cimcumstances C1, Eve would freely take the fruit. U2: Under Cimcumstances C1, Eve would freely not take the fruit. U3: Under Cimcumstances C2, Eve would freely take the fruit. U4: Under Cimcumstances C2, Eve would freely not take the fruit.
Via His Middle Knowledge, given counterfactual truth, under C1, God knows Eve would take the fruit, and under C2, Eve would also take the fruit.
Thus,
Feasible world are U1 and U3. Aren't they?
So, it could be said that, Eve was predestined and free to take the fruit.
The further question is, why wouldn't God actualized the Universe which Eve freely not take the fruit? Intuiteively my answer would, given any arbitary circumstances, Eve would always take the fruit, so all the feasible universe always contain the fact that: Eve take the fruit.
Any comment would be great
|
| Loading... | |
| tcampen |
| Posted 04/20/12 at 10:39 PM | Reply with quote #2 |
|
| Why wouldn't god actuallize a world where the fruit didn't exist to be taken? Free will does not demand a world where everything is a possibility.
Sorry, I have no intention of derailing your OP. It's just that I have difficulty considering the options as viable alternatives when there seems to me to be another obvious option that avoids the whole issue for the benefit of humanity.
|
| Loading... | |
| OrdinaryClay |
| Posted 04/20/12 at 11:02 PM | Reply with quote #3 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by tcampenWhy wouldn't god actuallize a world where the fruit didn't exist to be taken? Free will does not demand a world where everything is a possibility.
Sorry, I have no intention of derailing your OP. It's just that I have difficulty considering the options as viable alternatives when there seems to me to be another obvious option that avoids the whole issue for the benefit of humanity.
The reason God choose to actualize the world He did (whith fruit) is based on a global optimization only He knows. Molinism provides the base on which His possession of middle knowledge allows Him to make that choice. It does not allow us to know why He made the choice.
|
| Loading... | |
| saibomb |
| Posted 04/20/12 at 11:32 PM | Reply with quote #4 |
|
| WOW. I cannot honestly imagine the author of genesis would ever think people would be taking that story so literally. There's just no way. |
| Loading... | |
| idunno |
| Posted 04/21/12 at 12:04 AM | Reply with quote #5 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by saibomb
WOW. I cannot honestly imagine the author of genesis would ever think people would be taking that story so literally. There's just no way.
Why not?
EDIT: Oops, don't want to derail the thread either. On topic, while its conceivable that God can actualize a world in which A and E do not initially eat of the tree I don't think its possible for Him to actualize a world in which they refrain from eating of it indefinitely, at least not freely.
EDIT EDIT: tc, while the presence of 'the apple' may not be necessary for free will I think it is necessary for moral responsibility. |
| Loading... | |
| tcampen |
| Posted 04/21/12 at 02:09 AM | Reply with quote #6 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by OrdinaryClayQuote: Originally Posted by tcampenWhy wouldn't god actuallize a world where the fruit didn't exist to be taken? Free will does not demand a world where everything is a possibility.
Sorry, I have no intention of derailing your OP. It's just that I have difficulty considering the options as viable alternatives when there seems to me to be another obvious option that avoids the whole issue for the benefit of humanity.
The reason God choose to actualize the world He did (whith fruit) is based on a global optimization only He knows. Molinism provides the base on which His possession of middle knowledge allows Him to make that choice. It does not allow us to know why He made the choice.
I simply do not subscribe to the notion your argument makes any sense outside of arbitrary wishful thinking. I understand WLC makes this assertion based on a desire that God has a really really good reason for the world being exactly the way it is - namely that our world is optimized for the maximum number of individuals to freely come to know and accept Jesus. This idea appears so absurd to me on every level; question begging at its core.
But to just accept God has the best possible reason for making the world exactly as it is is not a philosophical or logical statement - it is a quintessential dogmatic religious position of faith. I don't have a big issue with this, so long as it is recognized for what it is. For this sort of thinking can justify anything in the world as being acceptable, or even ordained by God - and that sort of thinking leads to some very undesirable consequences.
WLC does provide the "why", as I stated above. His "why" on molinism is equally absurd, thinking that greater evidence of god would somehow impinge on one's free will to accept God.
It just seems to me this is all an unsuccessful attempt to reconcile the otherwise incompatible ideas of God's omniscience versus human free will. I don't need God to be omniscient so I don't really run into this problem. |
| Loading... | |
| tcampen |
| Posted 04/21/12 at 02:14 AM | Reply with quote #7 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by idunno
EDIT EDIT: tc, while the presence of 'the apple' may not be necessary for free will I think it is necessary for moral responsibility.
Why is moral responsibility necessary? Does Jesus love or accept the Father any less even though he is incapable of sin or vice versa? The capacity to sin is not a necessary condition for having a real relationship with God, as far as I can see - not logically, at least.
I understand theology works by some different rules, but I'm not referring to theology here. |
| Loading... | |
| idunno |
| Posted 04/21/12 at 02:38 AM | Reply with quote #8 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by tcampenQuote: Originally Posted by idunno
EDIT EDIT: tc, while the presence of 'the apple' may not be necessary for free will I think it is necessary for moral responsibility.
Why is moral responsibility necessary? Does Jesus love or accept the Father any less even though he is incapable of sin or vice versa? The capacity to sin is not a necessary condition for having a real relationship with God, as far as I can see - not logically, at least.
I understand theology works by some different rules, but I'm not referring to theology here.
Here's something from the Q&A
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/freedom-and-the-ability-to-choose-evil |
| Loading... | |
| tcampen |
| Posted 04/21/12 at 04:09 AM | Reply with quote #9 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by idunnoQuote: Originally Posted by tcampenQuote: Originally Posted by idunno
EDIT EDIT: tc, while the presence of 'the apple' may not be necessary for free will I think it is necessary for moral responsibility.
Why is moral responsibility necessary? Does Jesus love or accept the Father any less even though he is incapable of sin or vice versa? The capacity to sin is not a necessary condition for having a real relationship with God, as far as I can see - not logically, at least.
I understand theology works by some different rules, but I'm not referring to theology here. Here's something from the Q&A http://www.reasonablefaith.org/freedom-and-the-ability-to-choose-evil[/QUOTE] Thanks, read it, still think WLC wrong. (He is allowed to be wrong sometimes, right?) His Theodicy is founded in his religious faith, and then he goes from there. I still don't think from an independent logical perspective that he is convincing. I suspect that explains why those who already hold the same religious views as WLC are more apt to see his point here as perfectly logical. In fact, WLC states: Quote: Now how is this compatible with the claim of the Free Will Defense that “it is logically impossible for God to create a world in which humans enjoy free will, and yet are unable to use that will to choose evil?” Notice that the Free Will Defense doesn’t entail such a claim. It’s consistent with the Free Will Defense that although there are possible worlds such as you describe, they have other overriding deficiencies that make them less preferable to worlds in which humans can choose both evil and good. But then goes on to clarify this position in stating: Quote: Nevertheless, I think it’s dubious that God could create a creature which has the ability freely to choose only the Good. Such an ability seems to belong properly only to a nature which has the property of moral perfection, a property that belongs to God alone. You see, I'm not referring to what I (or WLC or anyone else) think God ought to be like, desire, behave, etc. WLC quickly infuses his faith into the issue to get to the conclusion he held from the beginning. I'm referring to this from a purely logical perspective. Once we infuse our own ideas about God into the mix, of course we'll arive exactly where we want to.
|
| Loading... | |
| idunno |
| Posted 04/21/12 at 05:48 PM | Reply with quote #10 |
|
Correct me if I'm wrong here but let me explain how I understood those two.
In the first quote He seems to be acknowledging that God could in fact create a world in which we could have free will but are unable to choose evil. All that is required is that, as you've suggested, He simply create a world without 'forbidden fruit'
In regards to the second quote, again it seems to me, that Craig is saying that if God were to create a world with the potential for evil He could not create us in a way where we are able freely to resist that evil indefinitely.
I don't think its entirely mysterious as to why God would create a world with that potential. At least one reason is that there are a number of virtues that could never be experienced in the absence of some evil or danger. However this is surely not the end all reason why this world is preferable.
You could say that this is just a theological escape but I think you'd agree that something isn't necessarily false just because its paradoxical. |
| Loading... | |
| saibomb |
| Posted 04/21/12 at 07:49 PM | Reply with quote #11 |
|
Because it has all the elements of a 'story', a metaphorical story, that is. To think genesis was written as a historical or scientific account of the beginning is to miss the point entirely. My opinion. |
| Loading... | |
| idunno |
| Posted 04/21/12 at 10:04 PM | Reply with quote #12 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by saibomb
Because it has all the elements of a 'story', a metaphorical story, that is. To think genesis was written as a historical or scientific account of the beginning is to miss the point entirely. My opinion.
I guess I should have asked what you thought shouldn't be taken literally. A case can be made that the 6 days of creation weren't meant to be interpreted as literal days from the text. However when you read Romans 5 Paul seems to treat Adam as an actual person. |
| Loading... | |
| saibomb |
| Posted 04/21/12 at 11:42 PM | Reply with quote #13 |
|
| And Paul was around when genesis was written?
I'm not sure how to explain that something shouldn't be taken literally -- how about we start with the talking serpent? |
| Loading... | |
| idunno |
| Posted 04/21/12 at 11:57 PM | Reply with quote #14 |
|
Don't you have some homework to do? 
OK, I've said this a few times on the forum but I'm working on my theology, so I've set dogmatism aside. I haven't done an in depth study of Genesis but it doesn't seem too far-fetched to me to say that certain aspects of Genesis are meant to be metaphorical while other aspects were meant to be taken literal. Again , I haven't looked too much into it at this point, but looking at the way in which Paul treats Adam leads me to believe He was an actual person. |
| Loading... | |
| OrdinaryClay |
| Posted 04/21/12 at 11:59 PM | Reply with quote #15 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by tcampenQuote: Originally Posted by OrdinaryClayQuote: Originally Posted by tcampenWhy wouldn't god actuallize a world where the fruit didn't exist to be taken? Free will does not demand a world where everything is a possibility.
Sorry, I have no intention of derailing your OP. It's just that I have difficulty considering the options as viable alternatives when there seems to me to be another obvious option that avoids the whole issue for the benefit of humanity.
The reason God choose to actualize the world He did (whith fruit) is based on a global optimization only He knows. Molinism provides the base on which His possession of middle knowledge allows Him to make that choice. It does not allow us to know why He made the choice.
I simply do not subscribe to the notion your argument makes any sense outside of arbitrary wishful thinking. I understand WLC makes this assertion based on a desire that God has a really really good reason for the world being exactly the way it is - namely that our world is optimized for the maximum number of individuals to freely come to know and accept Jesus. This idea appears so absurd to me on every level; question begging at its core.
But to just accept God has the best possible reason for making the world exactly as it is is not a philosophical or logical statement - it is a quintessential dogmatic religious position of faith. I don't have a big issue with this, so long as it is recognized for what it is. For this sort of thinking can justify anything in the world as being acceptable, or even ordained by God - and that sort of thinking leads to some very undesirable consequences.
WLC does provide the "why", as I stated above. His "why" on molinism is equally absurd, thinking that greater evidence of god would somehow impinge on one's free will to accept God.
It just seems to me this is all an unsuccessful attempt to reconcile the otherwise incompatible ideas of God's omniscience versus human free will. I don't need God to be omniscient so I don't really run into this problem. I answered your original question under molinism. You changed the subject to whether you believe the philosophy or not. There are thousands of posts and pages written on it. You have the info. It's your choice based on your free will to do with it as you like. |
| Loading... | |
