-
My Objections to Dan's and Tim's Joint Defense of Mere Molinism
Dan Chapa and Tim Stratton (D&T) provided a video defense of Mere Molinism (link) in responding to material from Colton Carlson (CC). This is just to highlight a few places where I took issue with their defense. All time stamps are approximate. I appreciate the generally cordial tone of their video, although I have a…
-
The Fallible(?) God of Molinism and the Problem of Self-Fulfilling Prophecies
One aspect of “Libertarian” (nothing to do with politics) Free Will (LFW for short) is the idea that a free agent can, in the same circumstance, either do A or not do A. God’s advance knowledge of the future, coupled with God’s infallibility, poses a serious problem to this idea, since it seems that either…
-
Craig's Dilemma – Escape for Aseity, but Hello Grounding Objection
William Lane Craig says he doesn’t think aseity is threatened by middle knowledge, because he is an anti-realist with respect to abstract objects including possible worlds. In other words, he views possible worlds as non-existent. Thus, God’s middle knowledge is not dependent on something outside himself. While that’s an understandable response, it runs smack into…
-
Don't Conflate Middle Knowledge and Knowledge of Contingents of Creaturely Freedom
Alfred J. Freddoso in his lengthy introduction to his translation of Molina’s “On Divine Knowledge,” provides some advice that would be well taken by his fellow Molinists (p. 23): Molina claims that infinitely many conditional future contingents obtained from eternity and that from eternity God had comprehensive knowledge of them. However — and this is…
-
William Lane Craig – If God's Just a Player, Who is the House?
William Lane Craig wrote: God doesn’t create such a choice for Himself. The counterfactuals of creaturely freedom which confront Him are outside His control. He has to play with the hand He has been dealt. (source) One of the objections to Molinism is precisely that it reduces God to playing the cards he has been…