This is one of the more ignorant interactions with Molinism I have ever seen. The guy doesn't seem to realize that it's pretty accepted among philosophers that just because someone knows something will happen doesn't mean it must happen. He doesn't deal Craig's logic at all, just calls it "inconsistent theology" and expects you to believe him. Then quotes a verse that does not say anything about God bringing to pass all things (like people's free actions).
The rest of the post is a lot of him quoting Craig and saying "LOOK at what he said!! Scandalous! Craig says that the reason God foreknows something is because the creature will actually do it. BUT we ALL KNOW that it's because God decreed for the creature to do it unfreely."
Come on. Surely you can see the problem with that line of argumentation.
This is one of the more ignorant interactions with Molinism I have ever seen. The guy doesn't seem to realize that it's pretty accepted among philosophers that just because someone knows something will happen doesn't mean it must happen. He doesn't deal Craig's logic at all, just calls it "inconsistent theology" and expects you to believe him. Then quotes a verse that does not say anything about God bringing to pass all things (like people's free actions).
ReplyDeleteThe rest of the post is a lot of him quoting Craig and saying "LOOK at what he said!! Scandalous! Craig says that the reason God foreknows something is because the creature will actually do it. BUT we ALL KNOW that it's because God decreed for the creature to do it unfreely."
Come on. Surely you can see the problem with that line of argumentation.