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.)
4 comments:
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!
Hi Dr. Pruss,
May I ask how 4 entails 5? I'm a Christian, but I imagine some might modify 2 and 4:
2*. God knows that if he creates Alice, Alice will reject his grace
4*. If God creates Alice, Alice will reject his grace
Now, 4* doesn't entail 5. But I'm still an undergraduate in philosophy, so I imagine I'm missing something. Or (although I'm not well-versed in Molinism) do my modified premises now assume that God has middle knowledge, and therefore assume that Molinism is true?
Best,
Owen
What notion of freedom are you presupposing when you say that Alice freely rejects God? It seems to me that you must be presupposing a libertarian notion of freedom. But I think that libertarian freedom is false: there is no such thing as an uncaused originator of action. St Thomas Aquinas would agree with me on this point.
Moreover, what if Thomism is true? You mentioned Molinism but you didn't mention St Thomas and Báńez, etcetera. In Thomism there is a distinction between sufficient and efficacious grace. If and only if one is given efficacious grace by God will one be saved (i.e, accept God). It is God who antecedently moves the will of the elect person such that they will infallibly be saved, and this doesn't negate human freedom, but is rather the ground and possibility of human freedom. Thus, in Thomism God could save all people but 'chooses' not to.
Why would libertarian freedom mean that there is an 'uncaused originator of action'?
Theistic compatibilism is false: if God determines and causes all your actions, including your sins, you are not responsible for them, and certainly not free. Banezianism is false because "God desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth".
Post a Comment