 |
| 
AlyoshaKaramazov
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 49
| Posted 10/16/2003 8:02 PM (GMT -6) |   | I have read some of Doc's work and have a question about the open view.
It seems that one of the principal motivations for accepting the open view is that it purports to answer the problem of evil. For if the future is not eternally definite and, thus, God does not possess exhaustively definite foreknowledge of settled realities, but rather knows the future as possibly this or possibly that, then he can hardly be thought responsible for the horrendous evil that this world exhibits, since we create much of how the actual world turns out. Wow that's a bad sentence. At any rate...
BUT, God has knowledge of every conceivable possibility of how the world might turn out. Just as Doc responded to W.L. Craig's middle knowledge position in the four views book by implying that God is what accounts for the eternal definiteness of would-counterfactuals, I would ask Doc what accounts for the eternal definiteness of so called might-counterfactuals? Isn't the open view in the same boat? And, in any case, didn't God take an incredibly unwise risk in creating the world on the open view? Having complete knowledge of what might happen (holocaust, bosnia, crusades, etc etc etc, ad infinitum), and yet still creating seems to make God the highest stakes gambler of all time--to put it mildly. So, in sum, the problem on the open view seems to be, where's Kenny Rogers when you need him?
I'd appreciate any feedback.
"You see I have come to doubt all that I once held as true. I stand alone without beliefs, the only truth I know is you."--Paul Simon | | Back to Top | | |
 |
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 10/16/2003 8:28 PM (GMT -6) | | Good questions A.K.
A.K. I would ask Doc what accounts for the eternal definiteness of so called might-counterfactuals? Isn't the open view in the same boat [as middle knowledge]?
Doc: What A.K. is referring to is often called "the grounding objection" to middle knowledge. What "grounds" the definiteness of God's knowledge of what free agents WOULD {certainly} do in any possible world? He is applying this to "might counterfactuals."
My response is this: What raises the grounding objection for the classical view of middle knowledge is that neither God nor agents can be the "ground" of the eternal facticity of would-counterfactuals. Not God, because if God grounded it the agents wouldn't be free (as in Calvinism); not agents, because they don't eternally exist. But the argument doesn't apply against "neo-Molinism," for it grants that God is the "ground" of the facticity of might counterfactuals. God foreknows every agent he could create, knows the nature he could create them in, knows every other variable that could affect them in every possible world, and thus knows the extent to which they are and are not free. His knowledge of "might-counterfactuals" is predicated on this knowledge.
A.K. didn't God take an incredibly unwise risk in creating the world on the open view?
Doc: It would only be unwise if it wasn't worth it. But, judging from the fact that most of us don't commit suicide, it seems to me we all implicitly agree that it IS worth it.
At the very least, if the Open view of God is criticized for creating the world knowing the risk of evil, views of God that affirm EDF must be even more intensely criticized for creating a world knowing the certainty of evil.
Hope this helps.
Doc
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
AlyoshaKaramazov
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 49
| Posted 10/17/2003 8:45 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc, thanks for the helpful response.
I appreciate the clarification on the grounding objection, but I have a problem with what you said about God's risk in creation.
quote:
Doc: It would only be unwise if it wasn't worth it. But, judging from the fact that most of us don't commit suicide, it seems to me we all implicitly agree that it IS worth it.
At the very least, if the Open view of God is criticized for creating the world knowing the risk of evil, views of God that affirm EDF must be even more intensely criticized for creating a world knowing the certainty of evil.
First, I don't see the connection between creation being worth it and most of us not committing suicide. Many people are afraid of death and would rather keep living in an attempt to make the most out of their lives than acknowledge what they believe to be the futility of life and end it all. In fact, I had a philosophy prof who believed life was utterly absurd, yet thought the end (as in purpose) of life was to make life meaningful for the individual--a sort of subjective meaning. Despite the fact that we live in a world where gross evil occurs, if he personally could infuse his life with meaning then the journey would be the destination and worth it in the end. So it seems at least possible that many people could acknowledge what they perceive as the futility of creation and yet lead, and be content with, subjectively meaningful lives.
Also, one major advantage of views affirming EDF against the open view is that we had ONE Hitler, ONE Stalin, ONE Pol Pot (and yes, I recognize how bad this sounds)--but on the open view there's no cap on how many Hitlers could have happened! Isn't the God who possesses EDF the ONLY God who would know whether or not creation would be worth it?. Again, it seems to me that the God of the open view took an out-of-control unwise risk in creating the world. On the open view, why should we believe that creation was worth it?
I should also mention that I have no theological agenda and am open (ba-dum-ching) to the open view--so consider these questions as honest.
"You see I have come to doubt all that I once held as true. I stand alone without beliefs, the only truth I know is you."--Paul Simon | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:28 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|