11 Jul 13
Originally posted by LemonJello"In basic terms, Molinists hold that in addition to knowing everything that does or will happen, God also knows what His creatures would freely choose if placed in any circumstance." = Omniscience.
Is there any theist here who considers himself/herself a Molinist?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molinism
Omniscience = "Omniscience [1] mainly in religion, is the capacity to know everything that there is to know. In particular, Hinduism and the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) believe that there is a divine being who is omniscient. An omniscient point-of-view, in writing, is to know everything that can be known about a character, including past history, thoughts, feelings, etc. In Latin, omnis means "all" and sciens means "knowing". (wiki)
Academia #101.
11 Jul 13
1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyAs usual, you haven't stated any clear point. If I had to hazard a guess, your point is that belief in an omniscient divine being also commits one to Molinism. Presumably, then, your point is that all proponents of the Abrahamic religions are also Molinists. If so, you're badly mistaken. I'm afraid it is not that easy.
"In basic terms, Molinists hold that in addition to knowing everything that does or will happen, God also knows what His creatures would freely choose if placed in any circumstance." = Omniscience.
Omniscience = "Omniscience [1] mainly in religion, is the capacity to know everything that there is to know. [i]In particular, Hinduism and the Abrahamic ...[text shortened]... gs, etc. In Latin, omnis means "all" and sciens means "knowing". (wiki)
Academia #101.
Just because one believes there exists some omniscient divine being doesn't mean that she is rationally committed to Molinism. Here's why. Molinists are committed to divine "middle knowledge" which consists of divine knowledge in counterfactuals that have a form something like If S were in circumstances C, S would freely choose to do A. Now, let's consider the definition of 'omniscience' that you yourself have provided: omniscience is "the capacity to know everything there is to know". Under this definition of omniscience, from the proposition that there exists some G who exemplifies omniscience, does it follow that G has knowledge consisting in the counterfactuals outlined above? Surely not. That would only follow with some ancillary assumptions, all of which can be rejected by the person who thinks there is an omniscient G (let's call this person T). Here are some examples, just off the top of my head. First, such counterfactuals can only be known if they are truth-apt and have truth conditions, but this can be rejected by T; and if it is rejected then such counterfactuals do not fall within the set of "everything there is to know" and hence it doesn't follow that an omniscient G knows them. Second, for such counterfactuals to be known they need to have determinate truth values, as opposed to, say, probabilistically indexed ones; and this of course can also be rejected by T. Third, even if T thinks such counterfactuals have determinate truth values, T can still claim they fall outside the set of "everything there is to know" by rejecting the idea that belief in such counterfactuals can be justified (and this may not be such a crazy rejection in the case that the freedom at issue is of a libertarian sort). Fourth, your definition of 'omiscience' doesn't imply that an omniscient G knows everything there is to know; it only implies that G has the capacity to know everything there is to know. So even if T thinks such counterfactuals fall inside the set of everything there is to know, T could still avoid Molinism by simply claiming that G has the capacity to know them but doesn't exercise this capacity for whatever reason. Etc, etc. There are surely more examples, but those are just the ones off the top of my head.
So, no, T is not committed to Molinism simply because T thinks an omniscient G exists. At any rate, since it seems you mistakenly think otherwise, is it safe to say that you consider yourself a Molinist?
11 Jul 13
Originally posted by LemonJellowhat would a god or goddess without omniscience and omnipotence have
As usual, you haven't stated any clear point. If I had to hazard a guess, your point is that belief in an omniscient divine being also commits one to Molinism. Presumably, then, your point is that all proponents of the Abrahamic religions are also Molinists. If so, you're badly mistaken. I'm afraid it is not that easy.
Just because one believes t ...[text shortened]... think otherwise, is it safe to say that you consider yourself a Molinist?
to offer the human race, perhaps the underwhelming gift of lower case...
11 Jul 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyWell, even if an entity fails to be omniscient and omnipotent, it can still be really, really, really wise and really, really, really powerful. I'm sure a really, really, really wise and really, really, really powerful entity would have lots to offer the human race.
what would a god or goddess without omniscience and omnipotence have
to offer the human race, perhaps the underwhelming gift of lower case...
But what does that have to do with anything? I didn't say anything about God failing to be either omniscient or omnipotent. I simply argued and gave reasons for the idea that even if S believes that an omniscient divine being exists, S is not somehow thereby committed to Molinism; ergo, the point you were trying to make in your first post (or at least what I gather and puzzle together was your point) was mistaken.
11 Jul 13
Originally posted by LemonJelloWell that was clear as mud.
As usual, you haven't stated any clear point. If I had to hazard a guess, your point is that belief in an omniscient divine being also commits one to Molinism. Presumably, then, your point is that all proponents of the Abrahamic religions are also Molinists. If so, you're badly mistaken. I'm afraid it is not that easy.
Just because one believes t ...[text shortened]... think otherwise, is it safe to say that you consider yourself a Molinist?
11 Jul 13
Originally posted by sonhousesonhouse, you really, really, really should try to be really, really, really kind to other communicators in this forum. I'm sure you really, really, really know deep within your gut that this suggestion off the top of my head is really, really, really bs.
Well that was clear as mud.
11 Jul 13
Originally posted by RJHindsEven within the secular realm, Omniscience is regarded as an attribute (or an inherent characteristic).
I believe God has the ability not to be Omniscient when He wishes or the ability to be omniscient when He wills.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the LORD! Glory be to God! Holy! Holy! Holy!
The Instructor
11 Jul 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbySo it was mud to you too🙂
sonhouse, you really, really, really should try to be really, really, really kind to other communicators in this forum. I'm sure you really, really, really know deep within your gut that this suggestion off the top of my head is really, really, really bs.
11 Jul 13
2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseWhich parts were not clear?
Well that was clear as mud.
Basically, Molinism holds that God has knowledge of those mentioned counterfactuals of freedom. Bobby was trying to say that if one thinks there is an omniscient God, then that person should also be committed to Molinism, presumably because Bobby thinks such knowledge of the counterfactuals of freedom follows from omniscience. But, that's blatantly false, and I gave several reasons why. If the other reasons are not clear to you, then just focus on maybe the most basic one. Take Bobby's own definition of omniscience that he himself imported into this discussion, that omniscience is the capacity to know all there is to know. Does it follow from this that an omniscient entity has knowledge of the counterfactuals of freedom? Of course not! Actually, strictly, it doesn't follow from that definition that an omniscient entity has any knowledge at all: it just follows that the entity has the capacity for extreme knowledge, but of course capacities are such that they may or may not be exercised. So even if the other reasons I gave are not clear, I presume this one is and shows that Bobby is confused.
11 Jul 13
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsOkay, then I think that makes you a proponent of so-called accidental omniscience (vice essential omniscience), whereby an entity can be omniscient at one time but not other times. That's fine, but it has little or nothing to do with Molinism. As I have tried to explain, omniscience is not really here or there with respect to Molinism: it is neither necessary nor sufficient for Molinism. You can thank Bobby for confusing the issue by trying to imply otherwise.
I believe God has the ability not to be Omniscient when He wishes or the ability to be omniscient when He wills.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the LORD! Glory be to God! Holy! Holy! Holy!
The Instructor
13 Jul 13
Originally posted by LemonJelloSo could this God in your opinion choose to forget anything?
Which parts were not clear?
Basically, Molinism holds that God has knowledge of those mentioned counterfactuals of freedom. Bobby was trying to say that if one thinks there is an omniscient God, then that person should also be committed to Molinism, presumably because Bobby thinks such knowledge of the counterfactuals of freedom follows from omniscien ...[text shortened]... e other reasons I gave are not clear, I presume this one is and shows that Bobby is confused.
Kelly