 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > Philosophia Christi Article on "Neo-Molinism" | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 11/11/2003 4:46 PM (GMT -6) |   | There's actually quite a dispute as to how far back the understanding of phi goes. Many agree the Egyptians had an understanding of it and came as close to expressing it in their pyramids as their technology allowed them to. In any case...
I FINALLY had a chance to digest this thread… dang Tom, you were MANIC!
Seems we all agree that the "square" is, at best, "non-elegant." Seems we all agree that there might be some advantage -- perhaps GREAT advantage -- to developing a logic that made "indeterminacy" as primitive as "determinacy." Seems we all agree that the original intuition that a triangle, rather than a square, is the best way to express this is correct. Seems now that we are just picking up the baton from Prior and (long before him) Augustus de Morgan (never heard of him before). And it seems we are all agree that, given his formal training, Alan should bear the primary life time responsibility of forging this revolution into the philosophical academy!  while giving mucho credit to Tom and the CVM board in footnotes for all insights garned thereof .
I find myself -- predicatable -- in agreement with my briallant twin (TGB) in his deepening the rational and need for a triangle and in fleshing out and refining its logic.
Just two responses….
Alan: ALL conditionals in which the antecedent presupposes creation are counterfactuals, for they have false antecedents.
Doc: Its not clear to me why "If God created x, then x might do y and z" is necessarily counterfactual just because God hasn’t created x. For the proposition says "if". This proposition expresses nothing COUNTER factual, unless we assume that God would NOT create x, for the fact is about what would (indeterminately) be the case IF God…. As I understand it, the Molinist called all these counterfactual because they countered (what they assumed to be) the FACT of the exhaustively determinate world God DID create (and before creation, determinately WOULD create). But if creation is partly open, and if the possibility of God creating x is within the parameters of this openness, then the proposition is FACTUAL.
( think of it this way: Molinist don't call the "woulds" that are actually actualized in the world COUNTERfactual, right? So why would we call the "mights" that actually pertain to the world COUNTERfactual?)
Alan: Molinists claim that among this counterfactual knowledge are true "would" counterfactuals of creaturely freedom (CCFs). Open theists say there are no true "would" CCFs, but only true "might" CCFs.
Doc: I argue that there ARE true "would counterfactuals" of creaturely freedom. These are the "woulds" that follow from the use of our libertarian freedom. Hence, it is eternally true (hence not counterfactual) that "If Peter comes to exist, and if he exercises his freedom in certain ways, he will become the kind of person who WOULD deny Christ in such and such circumstances." The "would" counterfactual is predicated on the "might" counterfactual. But then again, why the heck call this COUNTERfactual? I agree with TGB: they are FACTUAL.
TGB: Do we say "Tom might and might not come to town in 2004"? That’s what Doc’s been using. But I already tried to show that the independently true "might" and "might not" of the traditional square, being epistemologically open as to which state of affairs is TRUE, cannot be conjointly true (contrary to the rules of the square). We cannot conjoin what "might" and "might not" mean when independently true. This is the raw deal we have now. The traditional square robbed "might" and "might not" BOTH of the ability to affirm a true state of affairs and the ability to conjoin in affirming a true state of affairs.
Doc: This is aspect of your manic postings I never quite got Tom. As much as I dislike the square, it seems to me it left open the possibility (rarely if ever explored) that both "might" and "might not" could be true, hence rendering BOTH "would" and "would not" false. Grant it, the square "non-elegantly" does not allow for ONE single prop to affirm this – hence the superiority of the triangle – but it didn’t rule it out. Did it? (This seems to be behind Alan's defense of the square] And in this case, the ONLY case in which "Mights" are "independently true" is when they are "conjoined." By the way, I like the notation Mp for "might and might not p."
I have loved this thread!
Doc
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/11/2003 6:07 PM (GMT -6) | | Doc-
If it’s alright with you, I’d like to move any further discussion of logic, the square, the triangle, etc. over to “The Logic of Indeterminism.” It would be nice to leave this for discussing Werther’s response if that’s OK with you. Can we do that? I’m posting my response to you re: conjoined “might and might not” over to that thread and want to continue it there.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/12/2003 5:15 AM (GMT -6) | | Yo.
I am not trying to steal the vibe here or anything. But I'm having a thought.
I don't think that we are taking the Peter thing as seriously as it needs to be taken. Honestly. We've got to understand something. Let's assume that libertarian free will exists and can be discussed with new logical lingo. Fine, well, and good.
But this ain't doing a DANG THING about the issues with theodicy that are within open view theism!
Positing libertarian freedom, I still say, does NOT get everyone all this tree-huggin', feel-good solutions about the God-world relation that they think. It just doesn't. Yeah, you get to say thta God is not behind ALL evil. Big whoop. This still is a FAR CRY from resolving the true issues. And if we give a damn about some of the THEOLOGICAL and PASTORAL implications of being HONEST about this, then we need to talk about it.
Let's PLEASE deal with the Peter thing. Among other things.
Thanks. Now, back to your regularly scheduled mania session hosted by Tom, the Triangle Man! 
Holla,
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/12/2003 7:20 AM (GMT -6) | | Mehpi-
Here’s my answer to your Peter problem:
Z~p (Q ^ Peter), ~p~r --> Q v solidified (Z v Evil) --> “would” + Q (x --> freedom) = God is not to blame!
Any more question about whether logic can assuage our pain and suffering? Logic IS the theodicy! Shooot, dawg, you and I both know dat ain’t true! I feel ya Bro. I’m just so manic-awol with this stuff right now I don’t know what to do. Even when I talk to Anita or the kids I talk in logical rhyme. It’s drivin ‘em crazy.
I WILL give the Peter thread a good meditation and link up with ya!
That is:
Tom gives the Peter thread a good read = p
Tom links up with Mephi = q
Zpq dude! It is determinately the case that Tom will read Mephi’s Peter thread and link up with Mephi.
Gotta love it.
Hey, when I visited last month I thought you said there IS no theodicy, that theodicy is pointless, a lost cause, that it’s “out da winder” and dats dat. What gives? For somebody who claims theodicies are next to useless, you seem pretty intent on finding the right one. Did I miss something?
Mephi: Thanks. Now, back to your regularly scheduled mania session hosted by Tom, the Triangle Man!
Tom: (To the tune of the theme from Spider Man)—
(Verse one)
Triangle man, Triangle man
Does whatever a triangle can
Points ahead, left and right,
Plus points straight up out a sight,
Hey, hey, there goes your triangle man.
Triangle man, Triangle man,
Tells the truth like a triangle can,
If it’s A, it can’t be B or
C, that’s what he hopes you see,
You see! There goes your triangle man.
(Bridge)
Taking on the Square, at the scene of its crime
Capturing the facts on three sides, just in time!
(Everybody now!...)
Triangle man, triangle man
Friendly neighborhood triangle man,
Three’s the way to win the day
No matter what the logicians say,
Hey, hey, there goes your triangle maaaaaaaan.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 11/12/2003 6:37 PM (GMT -6) | |
Triangle man, triangle man
Friendly neighborhood triangle man,
Three’s the way to win the day
No matter what the logicians say,
Hey, hey, there goes your triangle maaaaaaaan.
Doc: Okay, the man is seriously ill. I recognize the disease. I had it during the threeness thread. Technically known as neuron fusion, it happens when the brain is so focused on one thought for such a duration of time with such energy that it functionally melts into ONE nueron, one thought, one single fixated idea... neuron fusion.
It's only cure....
heck, who wants to cure it. The best ideas come this way!!!!
Doc
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
| 82 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:52 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 |
|
|