tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post5453763934809703780..comments2024-03-28T19:56:42.305-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: An argument that Trans-World Depravity is unlikely to be trueAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-13745776085611639352016-06-07T13:22:58.367-05:002016-06-07T13:22:58.367-05:00Yes, one could say that, and I think it would be m...Yes, one could say that, and I think it would be more plausible than the original claim of the FWD. However, you are at that point objecting to the moral claims of the logical problem of evil, rather than the metaphysical claim. Once you do that, it seems to me that there are a lot more ways to reject those moral claims which don't depend on libertarian free will. Heath Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13535886546816778688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-59473025661794140152016-06-07T13:05:21.479-05:002016-06-07T13:05:21.479-05:00Well, every classical theist agrees with "an ...Well, every classical theist agrees with "an omnipotent agent can eliminate all evil". If God creates nothing, or nothing but one happy and unfree mathematician, then he has eliminated all evil. The question is about price.<br /><br />The FWD says: "Possibly: God can't have a significantly free creature and no evil."<br /><br />But one could instead say: "Possibly: God can't have a world rich in significant freedom and no evil."Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-29016811160349495272016-06-07T12:02:23.786-05:002016-06-07T12:02:23.786-05:00I agree about the "in practice" point. ...I agree about the "in practice" point. But then the Molinist is not disagreeing with Mackie's "an omnipotent agent can eliminate all evil" but instead is disagreeing with "a perfectly good agent would eliminate evil so far as it can."<br /><br />BTW, I think my point about lack of explanation applies to TWD, not just TWID. And I don't think you can (responsibly) appeal to coincidences over infinite numbers of agents.Heath Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13535886546816778688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-87896737066938760882016-06-07T11:27:55.009-05:002016-06-07T11:27:55.009-05:00How about the explanation: bad coincidence?
In pr...How about the explanation: bad coincidence? <br />In practice, the Molinist can complicate the story. Presumably it's not God's aim to produce one good free choice. He probably wants lots of them by lots of agents. Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-82592738241483473962016-06-07T11:03:11.394-05:002016-06-07T11:03:11.394-05:00I think about it the other way around. Consider t...I think about it the other way around. Consider the infinite sequence of worlds consisting of one agent making a morally significant free choice. Now suppose, for quasi-reductio, that TWD is true and none of these initial choices are good. Therefore, the assumption of Transworld Depravity implies the much stronger assumption of Transworld Initial Depravity.<br /><br />Wouldn't that be a remarkable fact? Wouldn't it need some kind of explanation of a sort no Molinist has attempted? <br /><br />Plantingan Reply: no, because this is a defense, not a theodicy. I'm telling just-so stories, mere counterexamples to the necessities alleged by the logical problem of evil.<br /><br />But the Plantingan reply is not available to the serious believing Molinist. It seems to me that you cannot (1) allege remarkable theological facts because they would be convenient for your theory and then (2) refuse to provide any explanation for them. This is to use the epistemic standards for a defense when putting forward a theodicy/world-picture proposed for belief.Heath Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13535886546816778688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-36897323487563495602016-06-07T10:26:53.507-05:002016-06-07T10:26:53.507-05:00Heath:
It seems intuitively extraordinarily unlik...Heath:<br /><br />It seems intuitively extraordinarily unlikely, but to cash out that intuition requires some more assumptions. <br /><br />One way would be an independence assumption: The conditionals of free will in worlds that have no individuals in common are probabilistically independent. Then we generate an infinite sequence of worlds that have only one agent who has only one significantly free choice, a different individual in each world. Then as long as we can say that each conditional of free will has at least, say, a one in a billion chance of coming out in favor of the decent action, then the law of large numbers tells us that with probability one infinitely many of them are in favor of the decent action, and so with probability one TWD is false.<br /><br />The independence assumption is highly intuitive, but I don't know how to justify it. The whole question of how to assign probabilities to conditionals of free will is difficult.<br /><br />If the Adams thesis is true (probability of conditional = conditional probability), we get some help with probability assignments. But the Adams thesis is widely rejected.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-50240884816149383442016-06-07T09:06:33.751-05:002016-06-07T09:06:33.751-05:00Here is a somewhat different argument (I think sim...Here is a somewhat different argument (I think simpler):<br /><br />It is extraordinarily unlikely that God cannot come up with an agent/world pair where the *first* morally significant action of the agent is morally permissible. But then he could just zap the agent dead as soon as she did something decent. That would be a counterexample to TWD.<br /><br />If God cannot create an agent who goes right the first time, that itself would be a pretty important theological fact.Heath Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13535886546816778688noreply@blogger.com