Molinism, Predestination, Free Will, Grace?!

[CHESTERTONRULES]

It’s an absurd analogy, because it ignores half my argument. I didn’t create the sport, or the players, or the rules, or all the conditions under which the game was played.

Irrelevant.

The point is that the players acted freely and the outcome was determined by the players, not the person observing the recording.

 

[fhansen]

You’re not understanding this. God wills to create, than has foreknowledge, then we are come into existence, giving the source for the foreknowledge

That can’t be. God knows everything in its* immediacy.* He doesn’t exist in time so, for Him, there is no “then”.

 

[fhansen]

Neither half of my argument is wrong, according to Christians. Unless you want to be the first one to tell me that God didn’t create everything, or doesn’t have perfect foreknowledge.

I’ll wait.

So what, then? Man is an automaton, an imbecile with no moral responsibility? ‘God made me do it?’

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I agree that the existence of an omniscient and omnipotent being precludes the possibility of libertarian free will for any of the lesser beings. Molinism can be a way to salvage believers from theological fatalism, but it also implies that the Catholic or Calvinist God isn’t fully good as you seem to intuit (unless you believe that creating people for hell is good).

Another answer is that 1) there is no hell, 2) there is no “grace” which causes “salvation.” In this case, even if God is somewhat responsible for evil, we can at least suppose that the evil must be necessary for some greater good, or at the least we can say that we do not have enough evidence to indict God for allowing evil without sufficient reason.

I submit this concise discussion for consideration:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/

This problem has been much discussed by theologians and philosophers of religion and there is an extensive literature on this subject.

The sporting event tape analogy is utterly inadequate because 1) the tape reflects the knowledge of something that has already happened and 2) the viewer bears no causal relationship to the events of the tape. This is not analogous because God knows 1) everything that has/is/will be happening and 2) is directly responsible for the existence of…everything.

I suggest that davidv and chestertonrules consider this problem a little bit more carefully.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

So what, then? Man is an automaton, an imbecile with no moral responsibility? ‘God made me do it?’

No, but he can’t bear the total responsibility for his acts. God must share in at least some of the moral praise or blame for man’s acts since he 1) knows with certainty everything man will do and 2) is solely responsible for his existence in the first place.

This doesn’t mean man is a robot with no free will at all, just that he is not a totally free agent able to do anything at all under no coercion by causes other than his own arbitrary will.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I
The sporting event tape analogy is utterly inadequate because 1) the tape reflects the knowledge of something that has already happened and 2) the viewer bears no causal relationship to the events of the tape. This is not analogous because God knows 1) everything that has/is/will be happening and 2) is directly responsible for the existence of…everything.

I suggest that davidv and chestertonrules consider this problem a little bit more carefully.

1. For a being outside of time this is a meaningless point
2. Maybe the viewer is the commissioner of the league. The point still stands. The event happened in time and the decisions of the players were made freely. The observer is outside of time.

I suggest you consider this problem a little bit more carefully.

 

[fhansen]

I agree that the existence of an omniscient and omnipotent being precludes the possibility of libertarian free will for any of the lesser beings.

The problem is that you seem to be saying that, with no God man supposedly has more freedom, more moral responsibility but, somehow, *with *God, due to His omniscience and omnipotence, man is suddenly rendered less free, less responsible. And that shift simply doesn’t follow logically. The reality we find ourselves in, with its moral choices and obligations, remains the same either way.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

1. For a being outside of time this is a meaningless point
2. Maybe the viewer is the commissioner of the league. The point still stands. The event happened in time and the decisions of the players were made freely. The observer is outside of time.

I suggest you consider this problem a little bit more carefully.

How can you have such clear intuitions about “timelessness?” Can you describe it for me? Shouldn’t you be able to at least describe it or define it if you seem to know that knowledge held in a “timeless” state is somehow less fixed than knowledge of the past?

OK, let’s consider this together since we both agree that we need to think about this problem more carefully.

Let’s start with this: define timelessness. When you do that, please tell me how knowledge is held in a timeless state? Is it possible or necessary?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

The problem is that you seem to be saying that, with no God man supposedly has more freedom, more moral responsibility but, somehow, *with *God, due to His omniscience and omnipotence, man is suddenly rendered less free, less responsible. And that shift simply doesn’t follow logically. The reality we find ourselves in, with its moral choices and obligations, remains the same either way.

On the contrary, I would assert that if there is no God, then it would seem that everything is totally determined and we have no freedom at all. If it can be shown that God certainly doesn’t exist, it seems like materialistic determinism is the next most rational belief (although Plantinga has an excellent argument for undermining all of our beliefs including that one if this is the case).

Because I believe we are made in God’s image, I do believe we have some kind of freedom. I can’t pretend to know the precise nature of our freedom, but I beg the question and consider that we must have some kind freedom in order for morality to be a coherent concept.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

How can you have such clear intuitions about “timelessness?” Can you describe it for me? Shouldn’t you be able to at least describe it or define it if you seem to know that knowledge held in a “timeless” state is somehow less fixed than knowledge of the past?

OK, let’s consider this together since we both agree that we need to think about this problem more carefully.

Let’s start with this: define timelessness. When you do that, please tell me how knowledge is held in a timeless state? Is it possible or necessary?

Time, like spacial dimensions, is a variable that was created when our universe was created. If the universe was created by a being on the outside, then that being would be outside of time and space.

Imagine the universe, from beginning to end, as a sphere. Now imagine a being outside of the universe, and outside of time, observing the universe. All the events in the sphere are observable to this being as if they are simultaneous.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Time, like spacial dimensions, is a variable that was created when our universe was created. If the universe was created by a being on the outside, then that being would be outside of time and space.

Imagine the universe, from beginning to end, as a sphere. Now imagine a being outside of the universe, and outside of time, observing the universe. All the events in the sphere are observable to this being as if they are simultaneous.

Please clarify the relation between the universe and this being that is “outside” both time and space. “Outside” is a term that implies the relation of space. “As if…simultaneous” implies the relation of time. You’re using terms that imply both time and space to describe the relation of this being to the universe. This is incoherent, unless that being bears no relation to the universe, which I doubt you will affirm.

For further reference, please read this excellently written, brief, but thorough essay:

iep.utm.edu/god-time/

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Please clarify the relation between the universe and this being that is “outside” both time and space. “Outside” is a term that implies the relation of space. “As if…simultaneous” implies the relation of time. You’re using terms that imply both time and space to describe the relation of this being to the universe. This is incoherent, unless that being bears no relation to the universe, which I doubt you will affirm.

For further reference, please read this excellently written, brief, but thorough essay:

iep.utm.edu/god-time/

It is not incoherent, you are just being stubborn.

The universe began at a single point and has been expanding in space and time ever since.

God is outside of this point and the current universe. The universe did not create itself.

 

[fhansen]

On the contrary, I would assert that if there is no God, then it would seem that everything is totally determined and we have no freedom at all. If it can be shown that God certainly doesn’t exist, it seems like materialistic determinism is the next most rational belief (although Plantinga has an excellent argument for undermining all of our beliefs including that one if this is the case).

Because I believe we are made in God’s image, I do believe we have some kind of freedom. I can’t pretend to know the precise nature of our freedom, but I beg the question and consider that we must have some kind freedom in order for morality to be a coherent concept.

But if God doesn’t exist then its quite hard to argue for any kind of absolute objective morality to begin with. Man is absolutely without constraint in that case, unless he chooses to constrain himself, which still argues positively for free will.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

It is not incoherent, you are just being stubborn.

The universe began at a single point and has been expanding in space and time ever since.

God is outside of this point and the current universe. The universe did not create itself.

OK we can change the topic to whether or not I am stubborn, but first I just need you to admit your agreement that the idea of a “timeless” being having a relation to the universe predicated upon time is incoherent. If you don’t agree, please explain how a timeless being can relate to or have knowledge of time? If the being is “outside the sphere” and the “sphere” is literally made out of space-time, how can a being that is not indexed to time (“timeless”) bear a coherent relation to the sphere?

I agree with your second sentence (based upon what we deduce from observation and also the teaching of the Torah). However, I don’t understand how this relates?

How can one be “outside” of a point? The word “outside” is indexed to space. It relies upon the notion of space itself. It isn’t meaningful to say someone is outside of time because the “outside” is time. If it is meaningful, please explain the relation between whatever it is you call “outside of time” and time. I agree with your last sentence.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

But if God doesn’t exist then its quite hard to argue for any kind of absolute objective morality to begin with. Man is absolutely without constraint in that case, unless he chooses to constrain himself, which still argues positively for free will.

Yes I agree, morality doesn’t seem to be grounded in anything deeper than mutual agreement if God doesn’t exist. I’m not arguing that God doesn’t exist though, merely that we don’t have libertarian free will. If God were to not exist, it seems like materialistic determinism would be the truth, and therefore there is no such thing as free will at all since all of our actions and thoughts would be fully determined by prior natural causes.

Rather than limit our freedom, I believe that God is the only reason to suppose we have freedom at all. Yes, we don’t have as much freedom as libertarian free will suggests, but that kind of freedom seems to be a fantasy and impossible anyway, regardless of whether God exists.

 

[belorg]

It is a straw man. Each individual makes free choices. God knows what we will choose. God does not choose for us.

Simple enough?

No, it is not simple. In fact, it’s highly complex.
And I have never said that God chooses for us.
It’s just that a situation that is true at every moment in time does not permit any real choice in a libertarian sense.

 

[AyJSimon]

Irrelevant.

The point is that the players acted freely and the outcome was determined by the players, not the person observing the recording.

But according to Christian theology, God is doing much more than “observing the recording.” He created the whole game, all the players, the field they play on, the cameras that recorded it, and the VCR that plays back the tape the next day.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

OK we can change the topic to whether or not I am stubborn, but first I just need you to admit your agreement that the idea of a “timeless” being having a relation to the universe predicated upon time is incoherent. .

I can’t do that. It is completely coherent.

Time is part of the fabric of this universe whether you want to admit it or not.

God is a separate entity from this universe, and therefore, outside of time.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

But according to Christian theology, God is doing much more than “observing the recording.” He created the whole game, all the players, the field they play on, the cameras that recorded it, and the VCR that plays back the tape the next day.

So what? The analogy still holds. God can observe the “future” without controlling the decisions of the individuals living there.

 

[AyJSimon]

So what? The analogy still holds. God can observe the “future” without controlling the decisions of the individuals living there.

Not if God created the individuals, and everything else they interact with.

If a bird flies by my window right now, and I turn to look at it, God willed that to happen, because God created me, and the bird, and the materials once used to build the building and the window, and all the people who, at one time, built it. If he has perfect foreknowledge for everything that will ever happen for everything he himself created, than nothing that he created can control its own decisions.