Molinism

Originally posted by LemonJello
OK. What does this have to do with whether or not under Molinism God is a willing accomplice in your doing A2?

Am I free to make the choices I make or no? If I am it has everything to
do with it.
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello
It's humorous to watch you in action. I'm hoping this is an isolated case for you, but you seem incapable of even attempting to study this topic objectively. I mean, let's break this down for a second. You admit to knowing next to nothing about Molinism (you claim you know only what I have said about it here, and as I already mentioned I don't think I between your favorite TV shows, but again, no reason to project this onto others.

Okay, you won this round. I am clearly outgunned so I concede the projectile vomiting aspect of this contest to you.


I believe a key motivational reason for you wanting to pursue this was clearly shown in your last statement:

"I think the Molinist account may also have non-trivial implications for God's responsibility even for things that are otherwise taken to be the province of his creatures' autonomy."

Originally posted by googlefudge
If you don't find the subject interesting then why are you here?

I completely concur with LemmonJello.

Except the bit about finding it amusing...

Why are you here? At the science forum people are told to take it to the spirituality forum if an aspect of spirituality is even hinted at. And yet the same goofballs who tell them to come here are here harassing the people who want to be here.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Am I free to make the choices I make or no? If I am it has everything to
do with it.
Kelly

Yes, you're free to make the choices. Remember? As already clearly stated we're talking about a state of affairs where you FREELY do A2 in circumstances C2. So the question is not about whether or not you are free here. You are free here...on supposition no less. And you can also infer, therefore, that you are responsible for A2. But the question is whether or not God is also responsible for A2. It seems to me that, assuming a Molinist account of divine creation, God should be just as responsible for A2 as you are since he freely chose to actualize you in C2, knowing full well that would eventuate in A2 (based on his exhaustive knowledge of what conceivable free creatures would freely do in whatever conceivable circumstances).

Let's suppose hypothetically that you have knowledge that if you drop your son off at school today he'll freely go on a killing rampage and wipe out all his classmates. Now let's suppose further that you freely choose to drop your son off at school today. So, you freely drop your son off at school. So, then he freely goes on a killing rampage and wipes out all his classmates. Obviously, your son would be responsible for those deaths. But wouldn't you also have blood on your hands?

Originally posted by lemon lime
Okay, you won this round. I am clearly outgunned so I concede the projectile vomiting aspect of this contest to you.


I believe a key motivational reason for you wanting to pursue this was clearly shown in your last statement:

"I think the Molinist account may also have non-trivial implications for God's responsibility even for things that are otherwise taken to be the province of his creatures' autonomy."

I believe a key motivational reason for you wanting to pursue this was clearly shown in your last statement

For my wanting to pursue what?

Originally posted by lemon lime
Why are you here? At the science forum people are told to take it to the spirituality forum if an aspect of spirituality is even hinted at. And yet the same goofballs who tell them to come here are here harassing the people who want to be here.

That is because the science forum is for discussing science, not spirituality.

When on the science forum I am there to talk science.

When on the spirituality forum I am here to talk philosophy and spirituality.

The separation is needed because otherwise people like RJHinds just turn every
single thread in science into pointless arguments about creationism/ID vs Evolution.

Which from a scientific perspective is like having endless discussions about whether
or not the earth is flat, drowning out any other topic.

It's not that those discussions shouldn't happen, but unless they are restricted to
spirituality they end up drowning out any other topic.

You will get a similar response if you try posting about spirituality in debates forum.
For much the same reason.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Yes, you're free to make the choices. Remember? As already clearly stated we're talking about a state of affairs where you FREELY do A2 in circumstances C2. So the question is not about whether or not you are free here. You are free here...on supposition no less. And you can also infer, therefore, that you are responsible for A2. But the question is ...[text shortened]... on would be responsible for those deaths. But wouldn't you also have blood on your hands?

You did read what I wrote right? We are all presented with things common
to man and its what we do with them! An honest man will return a found
wallet with ID and money in it while a dishonest one will even take one
that is in someone's pocket. The universe is either giving all of us the
freedom to choose or not, if it is than your C2 will be presented to all of us
and some will choose A2 and some will not.

Its no different than can God forget what He wants to, if He can than He can
back off and see what we will do, and we choose.
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello
Thanks for those clarifications. The logical structure of what you say doesn't make any sense to me. You say that a,b,c all "must be" the case for S to salvage G's reputation; but then you add on that alternatively S can just say d. If S can just say d, though, and acheive the objective; then it cannot be that a, b, c must all the be the case to achiev ...[text shortened]... . I have tried to clarify my point about Molinism in the post above to lemon lime.

I have a lot of respect for your thoughts and may be able to engage them intelligently, but not at this time.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Yes, you're free to make the choices. Remember? As already clearly stated we're talking about a state of affairs where you FREELY do A2 in circumstances C2. So the question is not about whether or not you are free here. You are free here...on supposition no less. And you can also infer, therefore, that you are responsible for A2. But the question is ...[text shortened]... on would be responsible for those deaths. But wouldn't you also have blood on your hands?

When we are given the right to make a choice, the power to make a choice,
the ability to make a choice, than the choice is on us. If you think a
universe where having that freedom is evil, because people do evil things,
I agree. I also believe that this life is limited, and those types of evil choices
will end with the end of this one. The universe that will last forever will not
have these types of issues with us, and it will not be filled with puppets
but those that made the choices and answered God's call when God called
us giving us the help we required, which again was offered to all, but only
a very small amount of us took God up on that offer.
Kelly

Originally posted by lemon lime
Why are you here? At the science forum people are told to take it to the spirituality forum if an aspect of spirituality is even hinted at. And yet the same goofballs who tell them to come here are here harassing the people who want to be here.

They like justifying their belief systems here.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You did read what I wrote right? We are all presented with things common
to man and its what we do with them! An honest man will return a found
wallet with ID and money in it while a dishonest one will even take one
that is in someone's pocket. The universe is either giving all of us the
freedom to choose or not, if it is than your C2 will be presented ...[text shortened]... hat He wants to, if He can than He can
back off and see what we will do, and we choose.
Kelly

Yes, KJ, I read what you wrote. I even read it very carefully. And now I have read what you say here and in your next post very carefully too. Absolutely none of it addresses my question. I'll ask the question again. Please try to address it this time.

Again, let's suppose that you freely do A2 in circumstances C2. Please note it says that you FREELY do A2 in C2; so you're free here, by supposition. Let's suppose further that a Molinist account is correct insofar as God has knowledge of the counterfactuals of creaturely freedom (so he knows what any conceivable free creature would freely do in any conceivable circumstances) and that this informed his creative process to bring about what is actual. It follows, does it not, that God knew full well that you would freely do A2 in C2; and it follows, does it not, that your being in C2 was in accordance with the divine will (othewise, it would not have been actualized). So, here is my question. I repeat: what follows is my actual question. Isn't God just as much responsible for A2 as you are? Just because you are proximately responsible for A2 does not preclude others from also being responsible for A2. In this case, A2 would not have eventuated but for the fact that you freely chose to perform it when confronted with C2. But, by the same token, A2 would not have eventuated but for the fact that God freely chose to actualize KellyJay in C2, knowing full well that combination would eventuate in A2.

Now, if A2 is something like your helping an old lady with her grocery bags, then good for you and the Molinist God to both be responsible for such a good deed. But if A2 is something like your forcibly raping a neighbor girl, then shame on both you and the Molinist God for being responsible for that obtaining. In the actual world, things like rape of a neighbor girl do proceed from human free will. So wouldn't this be problematic for the Molinist?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Yes, KJ, I read what you wrote. I even read it very carefully. And now I have read what you say here and in your next post very carefully too. Absolutely none of it addresses my question. I'll ask the question again. Please try to address it this time.

Again, let's suppose that you freely do A2 in circumstances C2. Please note it says that you FR ...[text shortened]... r girl do proceed from human free will. So wouldn't this be problematic for the Molinist?

I believe that God does lead us and call us out to do His will. I believe we
are all called out to do His will, but with some of us given the same
conditions they refuse. So does God call all, yes, do all answer, no. Does
this mean that God picked out some over others? I think God is willing and
does want us all to come to Him, but He will not spoil our will by making us
do things against our wills.

There is scripture that tell us we would not come to God on our own, He
calls us first. We are by our nature (sinful) opposed God, so without His
help we would simply follow our nature to its selfish ends. So the good I
do I give God credit, not sure if that is what wanted.
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello

I believe a key motivational reason for you wanting to pursue this was clearly shown in your last statement

For my wanting to pursue what?

To pursue your idea that God is complicit in (and to hold him responsible for) acts of evil commited by people. Look at your message to KellyJay immediately before asking me what I meant. It clearly shows your motivation for bringing up Molinism in the first place, and what it is you are obviously pursuing here. It is your intent to discredit God by suggesting he is complicit in the crimes commited by people.

The pseudo intellectual blathering supposedly provides cover for what it is you really intend to accomplish, but in my opinion it's really not much of a disguise. You were too eager to make the one point you came here to make and exposed your true intent much too early. I wouldn't be bold enough to come right out and make this claim if you weren't being so obvious about it, so next time you might want to try being a bit more subtle and let readers come to the conclusion you wish to lead them into, instead of essentially telling them what it is you want them to believe.

Originally posted by googlefudge
That is because the science forum is for discussing science, not spirituality.

When on the science forum I am there to talk science.

When on the spirituality forum I am here to talk philosophy and spirituality.

The separation is needed because otherwise people like RJHinds just turn every
single thread in science into pointless arguments about ...[text shortened]... ar response if you try posting about spirituality in debates forum.
For much the same reason.

Oh please, get real. This is childish and it's getting old (and moldy). You can't blame RJ for everything. You and some others here act as though everything you say to someone like me is a direct result of your dealings with him. I don't believe anyones behavior here is someone elses fault, so keep this silly feuding to (and among) yourselves please. I wasn't here when this stupid feud started, and I'm not a part of it now.

Originally posted by lemon lime
To pursue your idea that God is complicit in (and to hold him responsible for) acts of evil commited by people. Look at your message to KellyJay immediately before asking me what I meant. It clearly shows your motivation for bringing up Molinism in the first place, and what it is you are obviously pursuing here. It is your intent to discredit God by sugge ...[text shortened]... ad them into, instead of essentially telling them what it is you want them to believe.

The Problem of Evil can easily take several forum pages to discuss properly. Let's all be grateful that the intentions have been exposed 'early' at a mere 74 posts in the thread without the extra wait of silly, slow-moving 'leading' questions.