Originally posted by KellyJay
If God were completely selfish He could force everyone to do whatever it
was He wanted, but that does defeat the freedom of choice now doesn't it?
If the goal was to give everyone the choice to make and to present them all
with the same type of conditions so everyone is treated the same way, that
not the "forcing of someone's will" would be the goal and ...[text shortened]... sy. Giving anyone a choice requires restraint
upon God, to not undermine the choice.
Kelly

KJ, again, under Molinism we are free. So, again, I repeat: the issue is not about whether or not we are free. We are free in this discussion on supposition no less. But, based on the Molinist's God's exhaustive rolodex of knowledge of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, God is also free to actualize only those combinations of free creatures and circumstances that he wishes, knowing full well what any conceivable free creature will freely do in any conceivable circumstances. So, one of my points is that based on this, I would think the Molinist God would be just as responsible for the free actions of his free creatures as his free creatures would be. I'm still not sure if you agree or disagree with this, or if you even understand what I am saying here.

The second point you raised is that not all of God's free creatures freely come to God and yet God still wills that they all do so. But, if this is the Molinist God we are talking about, how can this be? The Molinist God knows what any conceivable free creature will freely do in any conceivable circumstances. Why would he actualize a free creature in circumstances that he knows will never eventuate in that creature's freely coming to him, if it is a primary component of his will that all free creatures freely come to Him?

Originally posted by KellyJay
"As an aside, I also don't know why you think humans have a deficient nature constituted by selfish ends."

You ever watch the news or read the paper? Look at just how we treat one
another here!
Kelly

🙄

Originally posted by lemon lime
I understand you do not believe in 'God', and this is simply an intellectual exercise for you. But did you really expect KellyJay and others who do believe in God would treat this as nothing more than a simple exercise? If you do not believe in such a thing as a God or gods then what motivates you to talk about anyones belief in God?

I su leave you alone so you may continue to enjoy ruminating over things you do not believe exist.

And I suspect you simply have no point here worth not missing. Yes, feel free to leave me alone here, since you have added absolutely nothing of substance to this discussion.

At least I am willing to take an objective look at Molinism and hear Molinists out on the topic (not sure we have come across any yet though). You, on the other hand, were quick to jump on their position and imply that no one should give a rat's behind about the things they posit...whilst admittedly having next to no understanding of their position in the first place. Yes, clearly I am the one out of line here. 🙄🙄

Originally posted by LemonJello
And I suspect you simply have no point here worth not missing. Yes, feel free to leave me alone here, since you have added absolutely nothing of substance to this discussion.

At least I am willing to take an objective look at Molinism and hear Molinists out on the topic (not sure we have come across any yet though). You, on the other hand, were qui ...[text shortened]... anding of their position in the first place. Yes, clearly I am the one out of line here. 🙄🙄

It was your position I was jumping on, not the Molinists. I was obviously talking to you and not to a Molinist, and my point had to do with your using Molinism for making a predictable (although undeclared) point.

Originally posted by lemon lime
It was your position I was jumping on, not the Molinists. I was obviously talking to you and not to a Molinist, and my point had to do with your using Molinism for making a predictable (although undeclared) point.

No, you were projectile vomiting in pretty much all directions, remember? If you're going to do something as unfortunate as puking all over the place, at least own up to your mess like a man. Now, go on and leave me alone like you said you would. Or not, up to you....

Originally posted by LemonJello
KJ, again, under Molinism we are free. So, again, I repeat: the issue is not about whether or not we are free. We are free in this discussion on supposition no less. But, based on the Molinist's God's exhaustive rolodex of knowledge of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, God is also free to actualize only those combinations of free creatures and cir o him, if it is a primary component of his will that all free creatures freely come to Him?

Well, I guess I don't follow you once again, I'll admit the fault more than
likely rests with me not you. I am not sure what freedom anyone can have
without intent from God to give it. If I understand your point the god of
the Molinism is like a pool player who knows how to hit a bank shot with all
the details in life to get people and everything else to do what it wants.

The point isn't that people have freedom either, thinking about what I've
been saying, we are pushed to remain in a evil world here so not only does
God have to give us freedom He has to lead us out of a evil world while
keeping us free moral agents *ability to choose freely*.

I believe God created everything, good and evil, as soon as He made a
good way once someone leaves that path they are no longer taking the
good way, once God creates the right way to be motivated as soon as you
leave that proper motivation you left the right way to do things.

With respect to why would God actualize a free creature in circumstances
that He knows will never eventuate in that creatures coming to God, as I
told you before, He has been leaving it up to the creature, some times the
creature says no. You would be forced to accept God, would that be a free
choice or would that make you a fearful puppets; moreover, I do believe
that we will judge in the end and those of us who reject will be confronted
with those that accepted upon less reasons against greater odds or equal
odds stacked against them. We will have no excuse.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Well, I guess I don't follow you once again, I'll admit the fault more than
likely rests with me not you. I am not sure what freedom anyone can have
without intent from God to give it. If I understand your point the god of
the Molinism is like a pool player who knows how to hit a bank shot with all
the details in life to get people and everything else t ss reasons against greater odds or equal
odds stacked against them. We will have no excuse.

With respect to why would God actualize a free creature in circumstances
that He knows will never eventuate in that creatures coming to God, as I
told you before, He has been leaving it up to the creature, some times the
creature says no. You would be forced to accept God, would that be a free
choice or would that make you a fearful puppets

The point is, under Molinism, God should be able to arrange it (supposing it is his will) that all creatures fully retain their freedom and yet none of them say no. So he should be able to bring it about both that it is left freely up the creatures in all cases and yet that none of them say no. Again, if it were the Molinist's God's will that all his free creatures freely come to him, then he should be able to achieve that. Since he has exhaustive knowledge of what any conceivable free creature will freely do in any conceivable circumstances, he would just need to actualize only combinations of free creatures and circumstances that he knows eventuate in the creature's freely coming to him; and refrain from actualizing any such combinations that do not. Again, this is why, supposing Molinism, I'm not sure it would be coherent to say that it is God's primary will that all free creatures freely come to him and yet it is not the case that all do. Again, maybe we would need a Molinist to clarify this point.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[quote]With respect to why would God actualize a free creature in circumstances
that He knows will never eventuate in that creatures coming to God, as I
told you before, He has been leaving it up to the creature, some times the
creature says no. You would be forced to accept God, would that be a free
choice or would that make you a fearful puppets[/qu ...[text shortened]... is not the case that all do. Again, maybe we would need a Molinist to clarify this point.

You are talking about manipulation of free will leading to only one preordained outcome. Under the will of a Molinist god our free will choices are free in principle, but not by definition of the freedom to willfully choose. Prior divine middle knowledge tweaking of free will and choice cancels out the implied intention of freedom initially being offered, and does not give the creator the satisfaction of having been freely chosen. If we are led to believe we have free will and and can freely choose, when in fact the choice has already been made for us, then creator and creation alike are only kidding themselves into believing their relationship is anything other than an arranged marriage.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Under the will of a Molinist god our free will choices are free in principle, but not by definition of the freedom to willfully choose.

As I understand it, Molinism allows for Libertarian free will (roughly 'free choices are those that could be otherwise'😉. God's knowledge is more like the knowledge of events after the fact, i.e., 'I know that you chose Mountain Dew from the vending machine because I just saw you take one out' except that God also has this knowledge before you chose the Mountain Dew. That does not mean you could not possibly have chosen a different drink. If you had, God simply would have known that instead.

Originally posted by lemon lime
You are talking about manipulation of free will leading to only one preordained outcome. Under the will of a Molinist god our free will choices are free in principle, but not by definition of the freedom to willfully choose. Prior divine middle knowledge tweaking of free will and choice cancels out the implied intention of freedom initially being o ...[text shortened]... idding themselves into believing their relationship is anything other than an arranged marriage.

You are talking about manipulation of free will leading to only one preordained outcome.

No, I am talking about the Molinist position, which holds that God can actualize states of affairs according to his will and according to his middle knowledge. There is no "manipulation of free will" implied in this process: God is free and his creatures are free, too. It's just that God can choose which combinations of free creatures and circumstances to actualize, and He knows for each conceivable creature/circumstance combination what each free creature would freely do.

Under the will of a Molinist god our free will choices are free in principle, but not by definition of the freedom to willfully choose.

No, under Molinism, our free will choices are free, period. They are as free as they can possibly be, under whatever conception of freedom of the will is at issue (presumably a libertarian one).

Prior divine middle knowledge tweaking of free will and choice cancels out the implied intention of freedom initially being offered, and does not give the creator the satisfaction of having been freely chosen.

Don't know what you mean. Look, the whole idea of middle knowledge is that God knows true propositions of the form "If creature S were in circumstances C, S would freely do A". Don't you see how it says "freely do" in there? You can't be serious when you say that in God's using this knowledge to actualize S in C, S somehow won't really be free with respect to A. That would simply contradict this true proposition that effectively says that S in C will result in S's freely doing A. You cannot assume that God holds middle knowledge and then argue that in actualizing S in C it somehow won't really be the case that S is free upon doing A. That is literally a self-contradictory argument.

If we are led to believe we have free will and and can freely choose, when in fact the choice has already been made for us, then creator and creation alike are only kidding themselves into believing their relationship is anything other than an arranged marriage.

Regardless if that is true or not, it does not apply to the Molinist position. Under Molinism, the creator does not make any choices for the creatures. The creatures make their own choices, freely. But God knows what choices the free creatures will freely make in whatever conceivable circumstances they may be in, and has creative province over what combinations of free creatures and circumstances He actualizes. God makes his own choices concerning what to actualize; but his resultant free creatures make their own choices, freely.

Quite frankly, no Molinist would have any reason to take any of your points seriously. To make your points fly, you would need to attack Molinism at the level of middle knowledge itself. Right? As I said above, you cannot argue that in God's having middle knowledge and actualizing on the basis of it, his resultant creatures are not actually free. That's contradictory! Again the whole point of middle knowlege is that it consists in knowledge of TRUE propositions of the form "If S were in C, S would FREELY do A". So, you would need to actually attack and undercut middle knowledge; you know, show that God doesn't (or cannot) have it to begin with.

Originally posted by LemonJello

You are talking about manipulation of free will leading to only one preordained outcome.

No, I am talking about the Molinist position, which holds that God can actualize states of affairs according to his will and according to his middle knowledge. There is no "manipulation of free will" implied in this process: God is free and his crea knowledge; you know, show that God doesn't (or cannot) have it to begin with.

From our standpoint no manipulation has taken place, because events appear to be rolling seamlessly along expected cause and effect pathways. There are no evironmental clues for us to see that would suggest this god was involved in actualizing states of affairs according to his will and according to his middle knowledge. So strictly speaking, from our own position of ignorance of how these scenarios were first selected and chosen to become actualized states then yes, the standard definition of free will is still on the table.

However, are you saying if the molinist god has chosen to select a scenario determining the free will choice we make, thereby determining the outcome, that he is not (or was not) actively involved in fixing the outcome? If not, then how can any hint of this gods "reputation" be in question? And it seems contradictory to claim both involvement and non-involvement existing side by side within the same proposition. So unless there is some supernatural explanation for this I don't believe you can have it both ways. Either the molinist god fixed the game before the dice were rolled, or he didn't.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[quote]With respect to why would God actualize a free creature in circumstances
that He knows will never eventuate in that creatures coming to God, as I
told you before, He has been leaving it up to the creature, some times the
creature says no. You would be forced to accept God, would that be a free
choice or would that make you a fearful puppets[/qu ...[text shortened]... is not the case that all do. Again, maybe we would need a Molinist to clarify this point.

You are not thinking this through if that is your point.
Think of it like a job interview, you either treat all the same way or you do
not. Where is the justice there? It has to be a level playing field for it all
to matter, or there isn't a just system in play. A Holy God would do it right,
and right in such away that He can show everyone everything and no one
could find fault in it once its done. You want a rigged system.

If making the choice was all there is to it, God could just show up or send
in some of the Holy Army people would react in belief no doubt about it.
Kelly

Originally posted by lemon lime
From our standpoint no manipulation has taken place, because events appear to be rolling seamlessly along expected cause and effect pathways. There are no evironmental clues for us to see that would suggest this god was involved in actualizing states of affairs according to his will and according to his middle knowledge. So strictly speaking, from ...[text shortened]... both ways. Either the molinist god fixed the game before the dice were rolled, or he didn't.

However, are you saying if the molinist god has chosen to select a scenario determining the free will choice we make, thereby determining the outcome, that he is not (or was not) actively involved in fixing the outcome? If not, then how can any hint of this gods "reputation" be in question?

First of all, I'm not sure "the Molinist God has chosen to select a scenario determining the free will choice we make, thereby determining the outcome" is a faithful translation of the idea that the Molinist God chooses to actualize S in C whilst knowing it is the case that if S were in C, S would freely do A. That's not clear to me. But, regardless, I've already argued that the Molinist God is actively involved in "fixing the outcome". Remember??? I specifically and explicitly already argued that I think the Molinist God would be just as responsible for his creatures' free actions as his creatures would be.

Notwithstanding, here's the thing: a Molinist will claim that God's active involvement in "fixing the outcome" in this way is still wholly consistent with His creatures being free and autonomous. And upon reflection on this, I really don't see any good argument against this claim.

Again, if you concede to the Molinist that God has divine middle knowledge (which again consists of knowledge in propositions of the form "If S were in C, S would freely do A" ); and if you concede to the Molinist that God actualizes S in C; then it should just follow naturally that S freely does A and so S is free with respect to A. So, you lose the argument. So, again, you'll need to attack the idea that God holds such middle knowledge in the first place. (Or I guess, else attack the idea that God actualizes S in C, but this should be granted to the Molinist for the sake of the argument.) But what is your actual argument that God does not or cannot hold such knowledge? What's premise 1?

The reason why I doubt you can present a successful argument here is related to what I already said earlier in this thread: I have never seen an argument for fatalism that I think is sound. Just because God knows that if S were in C S would do A, that would not preclude S's being free with respect to A, even under a libertarian conception of freedom. If you claim otherwise, you're basically claiming that God's knowing that if S were in C S would do A somehow precludes that if S were in C it would be possible that S would do not-A. But I think that's false. Do you have some argument to the contrary? If so, let's hear it.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are not thinking this through if that is your point.
Think of it like a job interview, you either treat all the same way or you do
not. Where is the justice there? It has to be a level playing field for it all
to matter, or there isn't a just system in play. A Holy God would do it right,
and right in such away that He can show everyone everything an ...[text shortened]... how up or send
in some of the Holy Army people would react in belief no doubt about it.
Kelly

You seem to have the same sort of objection as lemon lime -- that, basically, God's "fixing the outcome" according to Molinist account is somehow not consistent with our being free. I'll ask you the same thing I asked lemon lime about that: do you have an actual argument to show this?

Originally posted by LemonJello

However, are you saying if the molinist god has chosen to select a scenario determining the free will choice we make, thereby determining the outcome, that he is not (or was not) actively involved in fixing the outcome? If not, then how can any hint of this gods "reputation" be in question?

First of all, I'm not sure "the Molinist ...[text shortened]... alse. Do you have some argument to the contrary? If so, let's hear it.

Whether you believe I understand this or not, Molinism does appear to bear a striking resemblance to one particuar denomination of Christian belief (calvinist if I'm not mistaken) that proposes our so called free will decisions and choices have already been pre-ordained by God. This means our destiny has already been mapped out and our free will is only an illusion.

But this perception comes about from the fact that 1. we are not in a position to see future events and cannot know for certain what our choices will be and 2. God does know what the future will be for each and every one of us because he is omniscient. This can appear contradictory until we remind ourselves that God is not a man. Earlier I brought up the problem of anthropomorphism, and how we are prone to see God in our image rather than understanding how our being an image of him does not mean we are gods who possess the same abilities.

So I believe the source of this conflict is actually of our own doing, and only appears to be contradictory because of our inability to see our own futures. It actually doesn't make any sense for us to know our own futures, because then our free will choices become meaningless. But from Gods standpoint we may easily have and exercise free will indepedently from Gods ablility to know the future. In other words, just because I might know what people will do, that fact alone does nothing to influence them or tinker with their ability to make free will choices.

This appears to be the same problem molinists struggle with when they go about setting up a rigged game, where the players all have free will but the outcome is already known. It seems to me they are trying to resolve an apparent conflict that doesn't need resolving, because it doesn't actually exist as a true contradiction.