Reflection on Skeptical Theism

[Perplexity]

Ok, well if there are no disagreements with the first proposition [1], let’s see about the second:

(2) For any given E, God’s permission of E is a necessary condition for E’s occurrence.

To clarify what ‘permission’ refers to here, I’ll focus on God’s omniscience. God knew prior to any E’s occurrence whether it would or wouldn’t occur. But, knowledge is factive, meaning S knows p if and only if p is true.

So, prior to the occurrence of any E, there was a fact of the matter as to whether E would or wouldn’t occur, and God knew that fact.

Further, God didn’t have to create a world in which it was a fact that E would occur, or in which it was a fact that E wouldn’t occur. He freely chose to create a world in which E would occur, or wouldn’t, fully knowing whether it would or wouldn’t.

So, given any E whatsoever, if E obtains, then God has allowed E to. It is in this sense of ‘allowance’ that I use ‘permission.’ From the foregoing it seems self-evident that in a theistic universe no E could occur unless God ‘permitted’ it to, and therefore, that:

(2) For any given event E, God’s permission of E is a necessary condition for E’s occurrence.

It’s a short step from (1)-(2) to

(3): We can only say what P(E|Theism&K) is if we have some confidence in whether God would or wouldn’t allow E.

[1] (1): We can only say what P(E|H&K) is if we have some idea of the necessary conditions for E’s occurrence, and some confidence that they’re fulfilled.

 

[awolbob]

Ok, well if there are no disagreements with the first proposition [1], let’s see about the second:

(2) For any given E, God’s permission of E is a necessary condition for E’s occurrence.

To clarify what ‘permission’ refers to here, I’ll focus on God’s omniscience. God knew prior to any E’s occurrence whether it would or wouldn’t occur. But, knowledge is factive, meaning S knows p if and only if p is true.

So, prior to the occurrence of any E, there was a fact of the matter as to whether E would or wouldn’t occur, and God knew that fact.

Further, God didn’t have to create a world in which it was a fact that E would occur, or in which it was a fact that E wouldn’t occur. He freely chose to create a world in which E would occur, or wouldn’t, fully knowing whether it would or wouldn’t.

So, given any E whatsoever, if E obtains, then God has allowed E to. It is in this sense of ‘allowance’ that I use ‘permission.’ From the foregoing it seems self-evident that in a theistic universe no E could occur unless God ‘permitted’ it to, and therefore, that:

(2) For any given event E, God’s permission of E is a necessary condition for E’s occurrence.

It’s a short step from (1)-(2) to

(3): We can only say what P(E|Theism&K) is if we have some confidence in whether God would or wouldn’t allow E.

[1] (1): We can only say what P(E|H&K) is if we have some idea of the necessary conditions for E’s occurrence, and some confidence that they’re fulfilled.

How do you know God did not have to create the world,do you know him that well
SK as you have said can not make that statement.

I say because of all that God is ,and the world was made ,and no one was there to make Him ,some thing in God did cause Him to create all as He wished . As for allowance and permission they are not the same.God may chose to allow some thing in His creation to take place but that is not the same as giving His permission.
Allowance can be passive permission is not passive,you can allow some thing to happen
and not have to give or not give permission it may not even be yours say.

God did give free will in this world, that is not then same thing as giving us permission to do or act as we want, God did make known his way for us to live ,free will= allowance not
permission.
God may or may not give you permission to enter in to His kingdom,that is His free will.
Just because He already knows the your future does not mean He will cause your future that choice is yours and yours alone.

 

[razredge]

Ok, well if there are no disagreements with the first proposition [1], let’s see about the second:

(2) For any given E, God’s permission of E is a necessary condition for E’s occurrence.

Yes

It’s a short step from (1)-(2) to

(3): We can only say what P(E|Theism&K) is if we have some confidence in whether God would or wouldn’t allow E.

Yes

See now that you’ve divested the ‘we have to know God’s reasons for allowing something before we can say it is probable’ clause from the argument it becomes much more understandable and cogent.

However while the argument seems to pose a problem to those who believe God is constantly intervening in the world, for those of us who think God is non-interventionist can say that God generally doesn’t intervene (or doesn’t intervene at all) to prevent any event from occurring so the probability of any given event occurring is practically the same as it would be if there was no God capable of intervening.

It’s a good argument though - I might use it against those who hold that God is constantly working miracles, since it definitely seems to make a case that those who do so should also assume skepticism and give up believing that future events are likely.

 

[tonyrey]

However while the argument seems to pose a problem to those who believe God is constantly intervening in the world, for those of us who think God is non-interventionist can say that God generally doesn’t intervene (or doesn’t intervene at all) to prevent any event from occurring so the probability of any given event occurring is practically the same as it would be if there was no God capable of intervening.

It’s a good argument though - I might use it against those who hold that God is constantly working miracles, since it definitely seems to make a case that those who do so should also assume skepticism and give up believing that future events are likely.

A non-interventionist God is not the Christian God.

 

[razredge]

A non-interventionist God is not the Christian God.

Well, please respond to Perplexity’s argument then.

 

[Perplexity]

If there are no qualms with (1)-(3), all that’s left for me to do is show that skeptical theism would prohibit any confidence in whether God would or wouldn’t allow E, if it was true (soon to be (4)). That would allow us to deduce,

(5): Therefore, we cannot know what P(E|Theism&K) is.

Take any event E you want and ask whether God is morally obligated to allow E to occur, or morally forbidden to allow E to occur.

Make E = the falling of a penny. Suppose I hold out a penny and ‘let go’ of it. Is God morally obliged to allow the penny to fall? Or is he morally forbidden to let it fall?

Well, if God had any such moral obligations, one way or the other, he’d know it wouldn’t he? He’s omniscient!

But, skeptical theism tells we can’t be privy to God’s moral reasonings. So, according to it, whatever the fact of the matter is, (whether God is or isn’t morally obliged to allow the penny to fall), we can’t know it.

Ah, you might say, but we do know about gravity, and that’s more than enough information to secure our confidence that when you let the penny ‘go’ it’ll fall.

But, don’t forget what we’ve already agreed to!

(1): We can only say what P(E|H&K) is if we have some idea of the necessary conditions for E’s occurrence, and some confidence that they’re fulfilled.

(2): For any given E, God’s permission of E is a necessary condition for E’s occurrence.

(3): We can only say what P(E|Theism&K) is if we have some confidence in whether God would or wouldn’t allow E.

So, knowledge of gravity (etc.) is certainly not sufficient to secure our confidence that the penny will fall!

We must also know whether God would or wouldn’t allow E. That’s a necessary condition that must be satisfied before we can say what P(Dropped penny will fall|Theism&K) is.

And how are we to accomplish this if we don’t even know whether God is morally obligated or not to allow the penny to fall? We can’t. His previous behavior cannot inform us of whether he has any moral obligations re this event. He may have allowed all previous pennies to fall, but has a moral obligation with this one. (I know how crazy this sounds lol)

So, it seems on skeptical theism, we cannot fulfill one of the necessary conditions we’d need to in order to say that theism, if true, implies that the dropped penny will fall. We can reword this inference as follows:

(4): But, we can’t have any confidence in whether God would or wouldn’t allow E. [Assumption for reductio, skeptical theism]

This completes our argument:

1. We can only say what P(E|H&K) is if we have some idea of the necessary conditions for E’s occurrence, and some confidence that they’re fulfilled.
2. For any given E, God’s permission of E is a necessary condition for E’s occurrence.
3. We can only say what P(E|Theism&K) is if we have some confidence in whether God would or wouldn’t allow E.
4. But, we can’t have any confidence in whether God would or wouldn’t allow E. [Assume for reductio, skeptical theism]
5. Therefore, we can’t say what P(E|Theism&K).

Obviously, no theist will grant (5)…it’s crazy. (1)-(3) seem far more obvious than (4). So, if any of them have to go, I’d wager it’d be (4).

 

[empther]

Perplexity wrote:

:hey_bud: P(E|Theism&K) is.

P(E|H&K) E,

P(E|Theism&K)

P(Dropped |Theism&K)
P(E|H&K)
P(E|Theism&K)
P(E|Theism&K). :hey_bud:

A(@w-{s_h!|u">t&u4p!

 

[Perplexity]

Sorry, let me explain what the phrase ‘P(H|E&K)’ means:

“P” translates as ‘the probability of’’, “H” translates as ‘some hypothesis’, “|” = ‘given, or supposing that’, “E” is whatever it is that is being proposed as evidence to be discerned, “K” is our background knowledge: all of our knowledge and beliefs minus whatever E is. The parentheses don’t have any meaning.

So, the above phrase literately translates as: “The probability of some hypothesis given that the proposed evidence and our background knowledge are true.”

 

[empther]

A(@w-{s_h!|u">t&u4p!

 

[razredge]

1. But, we can’t have any confidence in whether God would or wouldn’t allow E. [Assume for reductio, skeptical theism]
2. Therefore, we can’t say what P(E|Theism&K).

Obviously, no theist will grant (5)…it’s crazy. (1)-(3) seem far more obvious than (4). So, if any of them have to go, I’d wager it’d be (4).

Yes 4 would have to go - it’s not necessary unless you believe God has to intervene to allow or prevent any event.

 

[awolbob]

Yes 4 would have to go - it’s not necessary unless you believe God has to intervene to allow or prevent any event.

razredge, I think it is time to stop this insane Reflection on Skeptical Theism. Perplexity’s religion is philosophy, which is the love of knowlege, but from a Christian point of view, philosophy and religion are not the same thing. Religion is the way we live out what we believe; philosophy is the debating of what we think we believe as a process to discern knowlege. After all this time we still do not have one point where we can discern where he stands. Perplexity has changed his definitions at every turn. True love of wisdom or knowledge will seek truth over just trying to win the argument. I believe his true religion is one of a new age:" god is not knowable, has nothing to do with creation or man in it. " Perplexity’s love is to argue every point only to try to confuse, rather then elucidate, any given point. Controversy for the sake of controversy has no place in this discussion. I believe God is knowable through the old and new testaments, but we require the help of the Holy Spirit Who must indwell us to make it more clear. On a last note, it is a monumental task for the finite to totally comprehend the Infinite. God reaches down to us to help us understand Him and His ways, so that we understand His infinite love and do likewise. awolbob

 

[Perplexity]

razredge, I think it is time to stop this insane Reflection on Skeptical Theism. Perplexity’s religion is philosophy, which is the love of knowlege, but from a Christian point of view, philosophy and religion are not the same thing. Religion is the way we live out what we believe; philosophy is the debating of what we think we believe as a process to discern knowlege. After all this time we still do not have one point where we can discern where he stands. Perplexity has changed his definitions at every turn. True love of wisdom or knowledge will seek truth over just trying to win the argument. I believe his true religion is one of a new age:" god is not knowable, has nothing to do with creation or man in it. " Perplexity’s love is to argue every point only to try to confuse, rather then elucidate, any given point. Controversy for the sake of controversy has no place in this discussion. I believe God is knowable through the old and new testaments, but we require the help of the Holy Spirit Who must indwell us to make it more clear. On a last note, it is a monumental task for the finite to totally comprehend the Infinite. God reaches down to us to help us understand Him and His ways, so that we understand His infinite love and do likewise. awolbob

 

[empther]

Originally Posted by awolbob forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
After all this time we still do not have one point where we can discern where he stands. Perplexity has changed his definitions at every turn. True love of wisdom or knowledge will seek truth over just trying to win the argument. I believe his true religion is one of a new age:" god is not knowable, has nothing to do with creation or man in it. " Perplexity’s love is to argue every point only to try to confuse, rather then elucidate, any given point.

Easy to do when you never actually say anything. Perplexity never says anything.
It’s all :hey_bud::hey_bud::hey_bud:

 

[Perplexity]

Easy to do when you never actually say anything. Perplexity never says anything.
It’s all :hey_bud::hey_bud::hey_bud:

I highly doubt I’m blowing smoke, anyone who’s familiar with the issues seems to understand me. If you knew stuff like what skeptical theism was, or got the gist of Bayes’ theorem I might take your criticisms a little more seriously. Until you can exhibit a bit more knowledge on these issues, I can only understand you as expressing your frustration in lack of understanding, which I can empathize with.

 

[empther]

I can only understand you as expressing your frustration in lack of understanding, which I can empathize with.

Don’t worry, folks. I don’t care what Perplexity or anybody else says.
What? Strangers on the internet I’ll never meet? Doesn’t worry me anymore than a stray dog.

:extrahappy:

Wait 'til Perplexity reads my book. He’ll be like this…:bowdown: :bowdown2: