Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Does an Omniscient Creator Lead to Fatalism?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by JimL View Post
    I take it you were looking in the mirror during that rant. Seriously Sparko, the logic is pretty obvious in my argument, it's completely missing in yours. You're making yourself a laughing stock.
    No he isn't.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
      I take it you were looking in the mirror during that rant. Seriously Sparko, the logic is pretty obvious in my argument, it's completely missing in yours. You're making yourself a laughing stock.
      That's the DK speaking Jim. You can't admit to anyone, even yourself that you are wrong about anything.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
        No he isn't.
        No? Then how about you refute the argument then Adrift. If god is eternally omniscient, if he knows your entire future eternally, knows your entire future prior to his even creating you, then once you are born, how can you freely do other than what was eternally known you would do, how could you be responsible for the your choices when they existed as knowledge before you were even born?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JimL View Post
          No? Then how about you refute the argument then Adrift. If god is eternally omniscient, if he knows your entire future eternally, knows your entire future prior to his even creating you, then once you are born, how can you freely do other than what was eternally known you would do, how could you be responsible for the your choices when they existed as knowledge before you were even born?
          God is infinite.
          . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JimL View Post
            No? Then how about you refute the argument then Adrift. If god is eternally omniscient, if he knows your entire future eternally, knows your entire future prior to his even creating you, then once you are born, how can you freely do other than what was eternally known you would do, how could you be responsible for the your choices when they existed as knowledge before you were even born?
            I don't know about or understand the whole quantum physics side discussion, but Sparko (and I think a couple of others) already explained this. God's middle knowledge is based on your actions, not the other way around, or better put, "God knows the counterfactual choices that free creatures would make in any possible set of circumstance". If you're sincerely curious about the subject, I suggest actually doing some research on the subject of Molinism, middle knowledge, and libertarian free will. The Christian philosopher William Lane Craig has a decent article on the subject called "No Other Name": A Middle Knowledge Perspective on the Exclusivity of Salvation Through Christ. Also, the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a fine article on the subject that includes both a summary of the theory as well as criticisms, and replies to those criticisms. Here's a bit from the article,

            Source: Middle Knowledge by John D. Laing, Copyright Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and its Authors, iep.utm.edu/middlekn/#SSH3a.i

            Middle Knowledge

            If Aristotle had not been a student of Plato, then would Aristotle have chosen to start his school at Lyceum? If you believe God knows the answer to this question, you probably believe God has middle knowledge.
            Middle knowledge is a form of knowledge first attributed to God by the sixteenth century Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina. It is best characterized as God’s prevolitional knowledge of all true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom. This knowledge is seen by its proponents as the key to understanding the compatibility of divine providence and creaturely (libertarian) freedom (see Free Will).

            Middle knowledge is so named because it comes between natural and free knowledge in God's deliberations regarding the creative process. According to the theory, middle knowledge is like natural knowledge in that it is prevolitional, or prior to God's choice to create. This, of course, also means that the content of middle knowledge is true independent of God's will and therefore, He has no control over it. Yet, it is not the same as natural knowledge because, like free knowledge, its content is contingent. The doctrine of middle knowledge proposes that God has knowledge of metaphysically necessary states of affairs via natural knowledge, of what He intends to do via free knowledge, and in addition, of what free creatures would do if they were instantiated (via middle knowledge). Thus, the content of middle knowledge is made up of truths which refer to what would be the case if various states of affairs were to obtain.

            1. Assumptions

            Before an examination of the theory of middle knowledge can be offered, several assumptions must be set forth. Each of these assumptions is important for an understanding of the doctrine of middle knowledge and its usefulness for theological reflection.

            First, it is assumed that for an action to be free, it must be determined by the agent performing the action. This means that God cannot will a free creature to act in a particular way and the act still be free. Free actions must be self-determinative. This assumption may appear self-evident to some, and quite controversial to others. While it must be admitted that God could certainly desire a creature act in a particular way and the choice remain free, it is difficult to see how He could cause the choice and it still be free in a meaningful way. Proponents of middle knowledge do not deny that God may influence a free choice or persuade an agent to act in a particular way, but such influence and persuasion cannot be determinative if the action performed is to be free. In addition, middle knowledge requires freedom of a libertarian nature. That is, free creatures have the ability to choose between competing alternatives, and really could choose one or the other of the alternatives.

            Second, it has become customary to speak of a logical priority in divine thoughts. This is not to deny the simplicity or omniscience of God, or to say that He gains knowledge that He did not previously possess. Rather, it is simply to acknowledge that dependency relationships exist between certain kinds of knowledge. It is also to acknowledge that something analogous to deliberation may take place in the divine mind. For example, in order for God to know that one plus one equals two, He must first comprehend the meaning of the concepts represented by the numbers, mathematical symbols, and formulaic expressions; they serve as a basis by which the truthfulness of the formula may be evaluated. But this is not to say that there was a time when God did not know 1+1=2. Thus, a relationship of logical priority, but not necessarily temporal priority exists between some of the content of divine knowledge.

            Third, proponents of the doctrine of middle knowledge believe that things could have been different than they, in fact, are. There is much that is not necessary about the way the world is. For example, I could have married someone other than Stefana, the woman I did marry. Of course, that would depend upon my falling in love with someone else and that woman agreeing to my proposal of marriage. Although I find it difficult to imagine my falling in love with someone else (I love my wife very much), the point is that there is nothing about my marrying Stefana that is necessary. Stefana was free to reject my offer of marriage, I was free to never ask her out, we may never have existed, etc. Or, for another example, God could have made things differently. The sky could be yellow instead of blue, or the grass pink. God could have chosen to not create at all. Although this assumption should be self-evident, it is also supported by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Things could have been different.

            2. Scientia Media

            Molina's doctrine is called scientia media, or middle knowledge, because it stands in the middle of the two traditional categories of divine epistemology as handed down by Aquinas, natural and free knowledge. It shares characteristics of each and, in the logical order of the divine deliberative process regarding creation, it follows natural knowledge but precedes free knowledge.

            Natural knowledge is that part of God's knowledge which He knows by His very nature or essence, and since His essence is necessary, so is that which is known through it. That is, the content of natural knowledge includes all metaphysically necessary truths. For example, the statement, "All bachelors are unmarried" is both necessary and part of natural knowledge. Other examples include other tautologies, mathematical certainties (e.g., 1+1=2), and all possibilities (since all possibilities are necessarily so). Natural knowledge can therefore be thought of as including a virtually infinite number of propositions of the form, It is possible that p, as well as a number of propositions of the form, It is the case that p. Thus, natural knowledge, properly conceived, is that part of God's knowledge which could not have been different from what it is. It follows from this fact that the content of God's natural knowledge is independent of His will; God has no control over the truth of the propositions He knows by natural knowledge. Consider, for example, the mathematical truth, 1+1=2. No matter what God wills, it will always be true that the concepts represented by the symbols 1, 2, +, and =, when arranged in a formulaic expression, one plus one equals two. It is important to note that, because natural knowledge is independent from God's will and, to some extent, places limits upon the kinds of things God can do, natural knowledge informs(ed) God's decision(s) regarding His creative work. This also means that natural knowledge is prevolitional.

            Free knowledge is that part of God's knowledge which He knows by His knowledge of His own will, both His desires and what He will, in fact, do. The content of this knowledge is made up of truths which refer to what actually exists (or has existed, or will exist). For example, the statement, "John Laing exists," although certainly true, is dependent upon God's choice to create me (or, more properly, to actualize a world where I am brought about), and hence, is part of God's free knowledge. Free knowledge can therefore be thought of as including a number of propositions of the form, It is the case that p (Note that propositions of the forms, It was the case that p, and It will be the case that p, can be reduced to a proposition which refers to the present). Since free knowledge comes from God's creative act of will, two things follow. First, the content of that knowledge is contingent; it could have been different from what it, in fact, is. That is, free knowledge includes only metaphysically contingent truths, or truths that could have been prevented by God if He chose to create different situations, different creatures, or to not create at all. Second, free knowledge is postvolitional; it is dependent upon God's will.

            As previously noted, middle knowledge is so named because it comes between natural and free knowledge in God's deliberations regarding the creative process. According to the theory, middle knowledge is like natural knowledge in that it is prevolitional, or prior to God's choice to create. This, of course, also means that the content of middle knowledge is true independent of God's will and therefore, He has no control over it. Yet, it is not the same as natural knowledge because, like free knowledge, its content is contingent. The doctrine of middle knowledge proposes that God has knowledge of metaphysically necessary states of affairs via natural knowledge, of what He intends to do via free knowledge, and in addition, of what free creatures would do if they were instantiated (via middle knowledge). Thus, the content of middle knowledge is made up of truths which refer to what would be the case if various states of affairs were to obtain. For example, the statement, "If John Laing were given the opportunity to write an article on middle knowledge for the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, he would freely do so," although true, is certainly not necessarily so. I could easily have refrained from writing, if I were so inclined (or too busy, etc.). Likewise, its truth does not seem to be dependent upon God's will in the same way that "John Laing exists" is. Even if God chose to not create me, the statement regarding my writing the article could still be true. In fact, its truth does not seem to be dependent upon God's will at all, but rather upon my will. One of the basic assumptions of the doctrine of middle knowledge outlined above is that God cannot will a creature to freely choose anything. Thus, the content of middle knowledge can be thought of as including a virtually infinite number of propositions of the form, If person, P, were in situation, S, then P would freely perform action, A (or P(S®A)).

            The theory of middle knowledge presents a picture of divine omniscience which includes not only knowledge of the past, present and future, but also knowledge of conditional future contingents (propositions which refer to how free creatures will choose in various circumstances), counterfactuals (propositions which refer to how things would actually be if circumstances were different than they are or will be), and counterfactuals of creaturely freedom (propositions which refer to what a free creature would have chosen (freely) to do if things had been different). This knowledge, together with natural knowledge, informs God's decision about what He will do with reference to creation.

            One of the most useful concepts for the explanation and evaluation of middle knowledge is that of possible worlds. The basic belief that things could have been different is commonly described as belief in many possible worlds. Each complete set of possible states of affairs (or way things could be) is a possible world, and although there is an extremely large number of possible worlds, it is not infinite (some states of affairs are impossible), and only one is actual (the way things are).

            In the contemporary discussion of possible worlds, two concepts have proven particularly instructive: actualization and similarity. In popular piety, it is not unusual to refer to God creating the world. However, in possible worlds semantics, this is seen as semantically improper. Instead, God's creative activity should be referred to as creating the heavens and the Earth, but actualizing a particular possible world (since possible states of affairs do not have a beginning, which the language of creation implies). According to the doctrine of Molinism, God can actualize a world where His will is brought about by the free decisions of creatures, but in order to make this claim, contemporary Molinists have had to distinguish between strong and weak actualization. Strong actualization refers to the efforts of a being when it causally determines the occurrence of an event (e.g., God causes something to happen), while weak actualization refers to the contribution of a being to the occurrence of an event by placement of a free creature in circumstances in which he will freely cause the event. Weak actualization has proven to be a powerful tool for understanding the relationship between God's providence and human freedom. However, it must be noted that it implies that there may be some states of affairs that God cannot weakly actualize, which leads to the further conclusion that there may be some possible worlds that God cannot actualize.

            A more controversial aspect of modern Molinism has been the use of possible worlds in determining the truth of counterfactuals. According to possible worlds semantics, a counterfactual is true in the actual world if it is true in the possible (but not actual) world that is most similar to the actual world. Not all Molinists have accepted this approach, noting the difficulty in determining comparative similarity among possible worlds.

            © Copyright Original Source

            Last edited by Adrift; 02-01-2018, 10:49 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
              I don't know about or understand the whole quantum physics side discussion, but Sparko (and I think a couple of others) already explained this. God's middle knowledge is based on your actions, not the other way around, or better put, "God knows the counterfactual choices that free creatures would make in any possible set of circumstance". If you're sincerely curious about the subject, I suggest actually doing some research on the subject of Molinism, middle knowledge, and libertarian free will. The Christian philosopher William Lane Craig has a decent article on the subject called "No Other Name": A Middle Knowledge Perspective on the Exclusivity of Salvation Through Christ. Also, the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a fine article on the subject that includes both a summary of the theory as well as criticisms, and replies to those criticisms. Here's a bit from the article,

              Source: Middle Knowledge by John D. Laing, Copyright Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and its Authors, iep.utm.edu/middlekn/#SSH3a.i

              Middle Knowledge

              If Aristotle had not been a student of Plato, then would Aristotle have chosen to start his school at Lyceum? If you believe God knows the answer to this question, you probably believe God has middle knowledge.
              Middle knowledge is a form of knowledge first attributed to God by the sixteenth century Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina. It is best characterized as God’s prevolitional knowledge of all true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom. This knowledge is seen by its proponents as the key to understanding the compatibility of divine providence and creaturely (libertarian) freedom (see Free Will).

              Middle knowledge is so named because it comes between natural and free knowledge in God's deliberations regarding the creative process. According to the theory, middle knowledge is like natural knowledge in that it is prevolitional, or prior to God's choice to create. This, of course, also means that the content of middle knowledge is true independent of God's will and therefore, He has no control over it. Yet, it is not the same as natural knowledge because, like free knowledge, its content is contingent. The doctrine of middle knowledge proposes that God has knowledge of metaphysically necessary states of affairs via natural knowledge, of what He intends to do via free knowledge, and in addition, of what free creatures would do if they were instantiated (via middle knowledge). Thus, the content of middle knowledge is made up of truths which refer to what would be the case if various states of affairs were to obtain.

              1. Assumptions

              Before an examination of the theory of middle knowledge can be offered, several assumptions must be set forth. Each of these assumptions is important for an understanding of the doctrine of middle knowledge and its usefulness for theological reflection.

              First, it is assumed that for an action to be free, it must be determined by the agent performing the action. This means that God cannot will a free creature to act in a particular way and the act still be free. Free actions must be self-determinative. This assumption may appear self-evident to some, and quite controversial to others. While it must be admitted that God could certainly desire a creature act in a particular way and the choice remain free, it is difficult to see how He could cause the choice and it still be free in a meaningful way. Proponents of middle knowledge do not deny that God may influence a free choice or persuade an agent to act in a particular way, but such influence and persuasion cannot be determinative if the action performed is to be free. In addition, middle knowledge requires freedom of a libertarian nature. That is, free creatures have the ability to choose between competing alternatives, and really could choose one or the other of the alternatives.

              Second, it has become customary to speak of a logical priority in divine thoughts. This is not to deny the simplicity or omniscience of God, or to say that He gains knowledge that He did not previously possess. Rather, it is simply to acknowledge that dependency relationships exist between certain kinds of knowledge. It is also to acknowledge that something analogous to deliberation may take place in the divine mind. For example, in order for God to know that one plus one equals two, He must first comprehend the meaning of the concepts represented by the numbers, mathematical symbols, and formulaic expressions; they serve as a basis by which the truthfulness of the formula may be evaluated. But this is not to say that there was a time when God did not know 1+1=2. Thus, a relationship of logical priority, but not necessarily temporal priority exists between some of the content of divine knowledge.

              Third, proponents of the doctrine of middle knowledge believe that things could have been different than they, in fact, are. There is much that is not necessary about the way the world is. For example, I could have married someone other than Stefana, the woman I did marry. Of course, that would depend upon my falling in love with someone else and that woman agreeing to my proposal of marriage. Although I find it difficult to imagine my falling in love with someone else (I love my wife very much), the point is that there is nothing about my marrying Stefana that is necessary. Stefana was free to reject my offer of marriage, I was free to never ask her out, we may never have existed, etc. Or, for another example, God could have made things differently. The sky could be yellow instead of blue, or the grass pink. God could have chosen to not create at all. Although this assumption should be self-evident, it is also supported by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Things could have been different.

              2. Scientia Media

              Molina's doctrine is called scientia media, or middle knowledge, because it stands in the middle of the two traditional categories of divine epistemology as handed down by Aquinas, natural and free knowledge. It shares characteristics of each and, in the logical order of the divine deliberative process regarding creation, it follows natural knowledge but precedes free knowledge.

              Natural knowledge is that part of God's knowledge which He knows by His very nature or essence, and since His essence is necessary, so is that which is known through it. That is, the content of natural knowledge includes all metaphysically necessary truths. For example, the statement, "All bachelors are unmarried" is both necessary and part of natural knowledge. Other examples include other tautologies, mathematical certainties (e.g., 1+1=2), and all possibilities (since all possibilities are necessarily so). Natural knowledge can therefore be thought of as including a virtually infinite number of propositions of the form, It is possible that p, as well as a number of propositions of the form, It is the case that p. Thus, natural knowledge, properly conceived, is that part of God's knowledge which could not have been different from what it is. It follows from this fact that the content of God's natural knowledge is independent of His will; God has no control over the truth of the propositions He knows by natural knowledge. Consider, for example, the mathematical truth, 1+1=2. No matter what God wills, it will always be true that the concepts represented by the symbols 1, 2, +, and =, when arranged in a formulaic expression, one plus one equals two. It is important to note that, because natural knowledge is independent from God's will and, to some extent, places limits upon the kinds of things God can do, natural knowledge informs(ed) God's decision(s) regarding His creative work. This also means that natural knowledge is prevolitional.

              Free knowledge is that part of God's knowledge which He knows by His knowledge of His own will, both His desires and what He will, in fact, do. The content of this knowledge is made up of truths which refer to what actually exists (or has existed, or will exist). For example, the statement, "John Laing exists," although certainly true, is dependent upon God's choice to create me (or, more properly, to actualize a world where I am brought about), and hence, is part of God's free knowledge. Free knowledge can therefore be thought of as including a number of propositions of the form, It is the case that p (Note that propositions of the forms, It was the case that p, and It will be the case that p, can be reduced to a proposition which refers to the present). Since free knowledge comes from God's creative act of will, two things follow. First, the content of that knowledge is contingent; it could have been different from what it, in fact, is. That is, free knowledge includes only metaphysically contingent truths, or truths that could have been prevented by God if He chose to create different situations, different creatures, or to not create at all. Second, free knowledge is postvolitional; it is dependent upon God's will.

              As previously noted, middle knowledge is so named because it comes between natural and free knowledge in God's deliberations regarding the creative process. According to the theory, middle knowledge is like natural knowledge in that it is prevolitional, or prior to God's choice to create. This, of course, also means that the content of middle knowledge is true independent of God's will and therefore, He has no control over it. Yet, it is not the same as natural knowledge because, like free knowledge, its content is contingent. The doctrine of middle knowledge proposes that God has knowledge of metaphysically necessary states of affairs via natural knowledge, of what He intends to do via free knowledge, and in addition, of what free creatures would do if they were instantiated (via middle knowledge). Thus, the content of middle knowledge is made up of truths which refer to what would be the case if various states of affairs were to obtain. For example, the statement, "If John Laing were given the opportunity to write an article on middle knowledge for the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, he would freely do so," although true, is certainly not necessarily so. I could easily have refrained from writing, if I were so inclined (or too busy, etc.). Likewise, its truth does not seem to be dependent upon God's will in the same way that "John Laing exists" is. Even if God chose to not create me, the statement regarding my writing the article could still be true. In fact, its truth does not seem to be dependent upon God's will at all, but rather upon my will. One of the basic assumptions of the doctrine of middle knowledge outlined above is that God cannot will a creature to freely choose anything. Thus, the content of middle knowledge can be thought of as including a virtually infinite number of propositions of the form, If person, P, were in situation, S, then P would freely perform action, A (or P(S®A)).

              The theory of middle knowledge presents a picture of divine omniscience which includes not only knowledge of the past, present and future, but also knowledge of conditional future contingents (propositions which refer to how free creatures will choose in various circumstances), counterfactuals (propositions which refer to how things would actually be if circumstances were different than they are or will be), and counterfactuals of creaturely freedom (propositions which refer to what a free creature would have chosen (freely) to do if things had been different). This knowledge, together with natural knowledge, informs God's decision about what He will do with reference to creation.

              One of the most useful concepts for the explanation and evaluation of middle knowledge is that of possible worlds. The basic belief that things could have been different is commonly described as belief in many possible worlds. Each complete set of possible states of affairs (or way things could be) is a possible world, and although there is an extremely large number of possible worlds, it is not infinite (some states of affairs are impossible), and only one is actual (the way things are).

              In the contemporary discussion of possible worlds, two concepts have proven particularly instructive: actualization and similarity. In popular piety, it is not unusual to refer to God creating the world. However, in possible worlds semantics, this is seen as semantically improper. Instead, God's creative activity should be referred to as creating the heavens and the Earth, but actualizing a particular possible world (since possible states of affairs do not have a beginning, which the language of creation implies). According to the doctrine of Molinism, God can actualize a world where His will is brought about by the free decisions of creatures, but in order to make this claim, contemporary Molinists have had to distinguish between strong and weak actualization. Strong actualization refers to the efforts of a being when it causally determines the occurrence of an event (e.g., God causes something to happen), while weak actualization refers to the contribution of a being to the occurrence of an event by placement of a free creature in circumstances in which he will freely cause the event. Weak actualization has proven to be a powerful tool for understanding the relationship between God's providence and human freedom. However, it must be noted that it implies that there may be some states of affairs that God cannot weakly actualize, which leads to the further conclusion that there may be some possible worlds that God cannot actualize.

              A more controversial aspect of modern Molinism has been the use of possible worlds in determining the truth of counterfactuals. According to possible worlds semantics, a counterfactual is true in the actual world if it is true in the possible (but not actual) world that is most similar to the actual world. Not all Molinists have accepted this approach, noting the difficulty in determining comparative similarity among possible worlds.

              © Copyright Original Source

              So, like I said, you can't answer, have no argument of your own to refute mine other than to post a bunch of stuff that you probably never read, and certainly haven't thought through or understand. Think about it, middle knowledge is just a weak attempt at skirting the obvious fact that omniscience, eternal omniscience, and free will are not compatible. If god were omniscient then the very idea that he has this made up nonsense called middle knowledge is ridiculous and again contradicts the very notion of eternal omniscience. And Adrift, it would be nice if when arguing an issue that you claim to understand, or have a viewpoint on, that you argue it in your own words rather than simply citing a bunch of stuff, or as they say arguing by web link.
              Last edited by JimL; 02-01-2018, 03:13 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                So, like I said, you can't answer, have no argument of your own to refute mine other than to post a bunch of stuff that you probably never read, and certainly haven't thought through or understand. Think about it, middle knowledge is just a weak attempt at skirting the obvious fact that omniscience, eternal omniscience, and free will are not compatible. If god were omniscient then the very idea that he has this made up nonsense called middle knowledge is ridiculous and again contradicts the very notion of eternal omniscience. And Adrift, it would be nice if when arguing an issue that you claim to understand, or have a viewpoint on, that you argue it in your own words rather than simply citing a bunch of stuff, or as they say arguing by web link.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                  God is infinite.
                  That god is infinite and eternal is not an issue that effects my argument, so not sure why you mention it.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                    So, like I said, you can't answer, have no argument of your own to refute mine other than to post a bunch of stuff that you probably never read, and certainly haven't thought through or understand. Think about it, middle knowledge is just a weak attempt at skirting the obvious fact that omniscience, eternal omniscience, and free will are not compatible. If god were omniscient then the very idea that he has this made up nonsense called middle knowledge is ridiculous and again contradicts the very notion of eternal omniscience. And Adrift, it would be nice if when arguing an issue that you claim to understand, or have a viewpoint on, that you argue it in your own words rather than simply citing a bunch of stuff, or as they say arguing by web link.
                    This is why I don't even bother to try with you JimL and just mock you and dismiss you. Adrift tried his best to show you what molinism is about and answer your repeated question about how God can know the future and there still be free will. But instead of even trying to understand, or do even a bit of study on the topic, you just pretend that adrift "can't answer" and "has no argument"

                    You are pretty pathetic, JimL and while you might think you are being clever, everyone reading your posts knows that you are just ignorant.

                    It's really sad.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      This is why I don't even bother to try with you JimL and just mock you and dismiss you. Adrift tried his best to show you what molinism is about and answer your repeated question about how God can know the future and there still be free will. But instead of even trying to understand, or do even a bit of study on the topic, you just pretend that adrift "can't answer" and "has no argument"

                      You are pretty pathetic, JimL and while you might think you are being clever, everyone reading your posts knows that you are just ignorant.

                      It's really sad.
                      Oh but you do bother yourself with me and my arguments Sparko, it's just that your refutations are always shot down wherein your mocking and dismissing of me begins. Adrift didn't say anything, Adrift posted a link, a link btw which had nothing to do with your video tape recording argument. Btw, isn't there a rule against debate by web link?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                        Oh but you do bother yourself with me and my arguments Sparko, it's just that your refutations are always shot down wherein your mocking and dismissing of me begins. Adrift didn't say anything, Adrift posted a link, a link btw which had nothing to do with your video tape recording argument. Btw, isn't there a rule against debate by web link?
                        Jim, this is the second time you've attempted to out me for debating by web link in this thread. Nowhere in my post did I debate by web link. I replied in a perfectly standard and acceptable fashion according to Tweb's long standing rules. You've posted on the forum long enough now that you should know this.

                        My intention was to help you gain understanding on an admittedly complicated topic. You're proving once again that you're not really interested in these topics, but in how you can "win the argument". I'm not in the slightest bit interested in that sort of discussion. If you want the title "winner of the thread", you have my blessing.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                          Jim, this is the second time you've attempted to out me for debating by web link in this thread. Nowhere in my post did I debate by web link. I replied in a perfectly standard and acceptable fashion according to Tweb's long standing rules. You've posted on the forum long enough now that you should know this.

                          My intention was to help you gain understanding on an admittedly complicated topic. You're proving once again that you're not really interested in these topics, but in how you can "win the argument". I'm not in the slightest bit interested in that sort of discussion. If you want the title "winner of the thread", you have my blessing.
                          You're so full of it Adrift. "My intention was to help you gain understanding" . I challenged you to refute my argument, not to help me understand something I probably understand better than you do. If that's how you're refuting my argument, then you are debating by web link. So either refute the argument I made, with your own argument, in your own words, like you said you could, or don't bud in. Linking to web sites doesn't mean you know what the heck they mean.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                            not to help me understand something I probably understand better than you do.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              Oh but you do bother yourself with me and my arguments Sparko, it's just that your refutations are always shot down wherein your mocking and dismissing of me begins. Adrift didn't say anything, Adrift posted a link, a link btw which had nothing to do with your video tape recording argument. Btw, isn't there a rule against debate by web link?
                              He didn't argue by weblink. He quoted a source to give you more information. If you claim you want to have a serious debate then you should be interested in the other side's view to see if it has merit. But you aren't. All you care about is burning straw men. So all you get is mockery in return from most people.
                              Last edited by Sparko; 02-02-2018, 08:14 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Sorry, got too busy to look at this for a bit.
                                Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                                The decision to view Paul's writings as inspired has been subject to church authority from their earliest adoption. The church made that decision and the church can reverse that decision, though clearly not without cost.

                                Some reversals are easier than others.
                                Reversals become more and more difficult with the passing of time. I'm also not aware of any reversals of positions in my tradition which were generally accepted by the church at large (Arianism tried, and failed, to overcome its defeat at Nicaea despite imperial sanction; similarly, iconoclasm failed to reverse earlier acceptance of icons despite imperial support).
                                A tranche of Paul's letters, including the pastorals, has always been viewed with suspicion within and without the church
                                I don't think this statement is even close to historically tenable. Every early list of received writings I can find (see Origen's list, several lists here, synopses here) includes at least 13 epistles to Paul (Hebrews is also often included, though Pauline authorship is disputed). The only figure in the early church who appears to have rejected some of Paul's letters was Marcion, and he was rejected as a heretic. According to the Wiki article, authorship of the Pastorals was not disputed until the 19th century. If that is correct, then they've been accepted as Pauline for nearly all of church history by all except a couple heretical groups.
                                Last edited by One Bad Pig; 02-06-2018, 10:56 AM.
                                Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                                Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                                sigpic
                                I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                14 responses
                                42 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                411 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X