@QuinticNon,
QuinticNon;122114 wrote:Sure, I can see that. But does this mean you reject the premise of Middle Knowledge?
Well I'm not sure what the premise of Middle Knowledge is I guess but the way I interpret Molinism is like this: God has 3 types of knowledge. 1. He knows what could happen, for example He knows that the potential exists for a world where no one ever sinned. 2. He knows what would happen, for example say you are in a scenario where you are given the choice between X and Y and you choose X, well God has the knowledge of what would have been had you chosen Y. 3. And lastly He knows what will happen. Meaning He knows when He creates a world what it
could have been if we
would have chosen "correctly" but because we are given free will it is not necessarily feasible that we
will. Thus He then knows what will actually occur.
Or to say it in another way, He knows what
could have been if we
would have done x but there may not exist any set of circumstances in which we
will do x.
What does this all mean? What it means is that God can wish to create a world that is without moral sin(just as an example) and he sees that this
could happen, however there may not be a world that exists in which no one
will sin, given they find themselves in a particular scenario. For example Johnny finds himself in a circumstance where he is confronted with the choice to steal something or not steal something. There may not be a world in which Johnny ever decides not to steal. Even though God could see what would happen if he didn't.
To sum up, God brings about the world that sees the most people come to know Him. However, not everyone will come to know Him, because in every possible world, while it may be possible for God to see the world where person x would choose to know Him, there are no set of circumstances in which person x will choose Him.
I'm not sure if this is correct or not because honestly this is a somewhat new concept to me but it makes some sense is all but if you have anything to add or critique in my understanding of the concept I'd love to hear it.
QuinticNon;122114 wrote: Are you suggesting that a God could not have created life unless he accepted earthquakes and asteroids by default?
I'm suggesting that life, in the universe in which we live, would not and could not be, at least in the way we experience it now and the way we understand life to exist, had the universe not been constructed exactly as it is.
QuinticNon;122114 wrote: Is there possibly an alternative position?
Perhaps God indeed could create life without the crutch of natural disasters to make it so. Perhaps natural disasters are what I call, a part of "God's Evil Plan"... as in, God's plan for Evil.
But here we must assume that you and I perceive Evil as the same thing. Let us not, for my definition for Evil is: Believing a Lie is True. I look to the communication model of Information Theory to support my position. Consider the notion of a Satan being equal to Information Entropy. If that be so, then Evil is believing that Satan is as Truth, or believing that Entropy has Meaning... It's the same thing. It's Evil. It's noise on the line.
Perhaps "God's Evil Plan" is planned as such to teach humanity lessons on filtering through the noise (looking past the Evil), and isolating and receiving the intended signal of pure Information. Perhaps there's a greater message that we're somehow not getting from concentrating on Static instead of the Lesson.
Perhaps the lesson intended is one of accepting our opportunities to come closer to our fellow man in their suffering. That's all Mother Theresa ever did... She joined people in their suffering. That's what Jesus did too. Why would they do that? Because not to do that is Evil.
I could accept that. I believe God suffers with His creation too(when we suffer etc.).
