belorg

  • ****
  • 7754 Posts
    • View Profile
Theological arguments against B-theory
« Reply #15 on: April 15, 2012, 10:21:45 am »
Jmac wrote:

Interesting, so this opens the door to an actual infinite, which would also address the omniscience question.

Yes, if an actual infinity is possible, it would open the door to omniscience.




The idea is that the distinctions don't exist in God's mind
.

But that dinstinctions do exist in God's mind is a basic premise in Christianity, unless you are a universalist.
And it simply makes no snese to claim that under Craig's brand of molinism, distinctions do not exist in God's mind, because Craig explicitly states that God uses the distinctions between what several possible beings would do in all possible disntinct circusmtances to decide which world He will actualize. To claim that, at the same time, distinctions do not exist in God's mind is simply incoherent.
But I do not need this to know that Craig's view of God is incoherejnt.

The perception analogy actually does capture this to a limited degree, insofar as a visual image of the external world in our mind can be thought of as a single unit of awareness, but it represents a complex state of affairs.  

But this overall visual image cannot be used to distinguish between the various elements that make up this complexity, which is required for Craig's type of providnece to work.

1

Jmac

  • **
  • 50 Posts
    • View Profile
Theological arguments against B-theory
« Reply #16 on: April 15, 2012, 10:56:43 am »
belorg wrote:
But this overall visual image cannot be used to distinguish between the various elements that make up this complexity

I guess we just have differing intuitions about this.

2

innerbling

  • ***
  • 1940 Posts
    • View Profile
Theological arguments against B-theory
« Reply #17 on: June 10, 2012, 07:16:29 pm »
Actual infinite does not follow from libertarian freedom at all as one has libertarian freedom even if she has finite choices or even set of two once during her entire lifetime.

Hence it is simply not true that actual infinite number of possible worlds is needed to account for selection of the best possible world in molinism.

Secondly God's omniscience can be described as algorithmic hence there is no need for Him to have propositional knowledge about every outcome as this namespace is already contained in the algorithm itself.

For example I don't need to calculate every output for algorithm X+1 to know that if X is 10 the result/output will be 11.
Or if I know that some optimal is 22 then I can assign 21 as X without calculating with every input.
This is non-linear knowledge and I don't see any reason why God's knowledge would have to be linear.

3

innerbling

  • ***
  • 1940 Posts
    • View Profile
Theological arguments against B-theory
« Reply #18 on: June 10, 2012, 07:32:05 pm »
Jmac wrote:
First argument:

1. If the B-theory is true, evil never ceases to exist
2. If evil is defeated, it ceases to exist
3. God will defeat evil in the future
4. Therefore, evil will cease to exist (from 2 and 3)
5. Therefore, the B-theory is false (from 4 and 1)


First argument is incoherent because evil does not ontologically exist in the first place but functions as a description for lack of good.
You can read "takedown of evil god" posts in the Stephen Law thread for some clarification.