Question: Suppose Alice goes to hell, having conclusively rejected God’s grace. Given that God knew that Alice will reject his grace, why did this knowledge not lead him to refrain from creating Alice?
Answer: It is impossible that the following two claims are true:
God refrains from creating Alice.
God knows that Alice will reject his grace.
For 1 entails:
- Alice won’t exist
while 2 entails:
- Alice will reject God’s grace
which in turn entails:
- Alice will exist.
(Of course, if Molinism is true, one can ask a very similar question to the one I started with. But Molinism is false.)
1 comment:
I wanted to share a concise dilemma regarding recent attempts to cause a Modal Collapse by redefining Necessity (as a state of maximal existential density) and Contingency (as a temporary potentiality awaiting saturation). When opponents claim that the outflow of the Sufficient Reason renders the contingent intrinsically necessary, they fall into a constructive dilemma: Essential Mutation: If the outflow alters the very essence of the contingent entity (C) into necessary (N), it asserts an impossible essential inversion (A \=A), violating the Law of Identity. Coexistence of Contradictions: If the essence (C) is preserved, but the outflow makes it inherently necessary (De\,Re) from the exact same respect, (C) becomes inherently deficient and inherently necessary simultaneously from the same aspect (P and \ P).To avoid both, one must maintain that (C) remains contingent in itself (De\ Re), while acquiring necessity merely by another (De Dicto / conditionally: \square(N to C)). This preserves both the PSR and genuine contingency. (In other words, the quiddity of the contingent being is not inherently fixed; rather, its necessity is derived from the cause—it acquires "necessity-through-another"—and does not originate from the contingent entity's own essence.) Would love to hear your thoughts if you have a moment!
Post a Comment