Does an Omniscient Creator Lead to Fatalism?

[Adrift]

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.

[Sparko]

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.

[JimL]

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?

[37818]

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.

[Adrift]

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 Knowledge1. 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

© Copyright Original Source

[JimL]

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 Knowledge1. 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

© 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.

[Adrift]

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.

[JimL]

God is infinite.

That god is infinite and eternal is not an issue that effects my argument, so not sure why you mention it.

[Sparko]

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.

[JimL]

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?

[Adrift]

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.

[JimL]

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.

[JonathanL]

not to help me understand something I probably understand better than you do.

[Sparko]

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.

[One Bad Pig]

Sorry, got too busy to look at this for a bit.

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.