Retired Boards (Archived)
Omniscience
Posted by: UNOWN301
« on: August 25, 2014, 04:29:02 PM »At least with the information that you have provided, it seems to me that all 5 worlds are feasible for God. The reason I say this is because each world has a difference circumstance.
Now, had you said:
a. Under Circumstances A, agent X freely choose to do evil
b. Under Circumstances A, agent X freely choose to do good
I would say only one of these worlds would be feasible for God to actualize depending on the counterfactual truth. If the counterfactual were "In circumstance A, agent X would freely choose to do evil", then only world a would be feasible because God cannot freely make X do good in circumstance A.
Now, had you said:
a. Under Circumstances A, agent X freely choose to do evil
b. Under Circumstances A, agent X freely choose to do good
I would say only one of these worlds would be feasible for God to actualize depending on the counterfactual truth. If the counterfactual were "In circumstance A, agent X would freely choose to do evil", then only world a would be feasible because God cannot freely make X do good in circumstance A.
Posted by: John M
« on: June 05, 2012, 05:40:25 PM »> Since all these world are possible, all these worlds are feasible for God.
> There is no difference between "possible" and "feasible for God" since God's
> omnipotence is defined as 'the ability to do everything that is not logically
> impossible".
This is not correct. In fact, it goes completely against the doctrine of middle knowledge!
Just because something is possible does NOT mean it is feasible for God - that's the whole point why the two different words are used.
The example Dr. Craig uses alot is Peter denying Christ three times. Sure, it is POSSIBLE that Peter would freely affirm Christ each time (there is nothing impossible about Peter shouting out "YES, I KNOW, FOLLOW AND LOVE JESUS" when questioned those three times.) He has the free will to do so. BUT! Under those circumstances, in fact, Peter does NOT do that - he freely denies Christ three times.
Therefore, while it is POSSIBLE for Peter to affirm Christ three times (and thus there is a possible world in which he does so), the fact is he does not do so in the actual world. Thus it is not feasible for God to create that possible world because in those circumstances Peter would freely deny Christ three times. God can't MAKE someone freely do something. So this possible world is not feasible for God to create.
That is the distinction between "possible" and "feasible".
Another more funny example I've heard used is "it is possible for President Obama to freely stand on his head and deliver his 2008 inaugural address" - that is a possible world. But in fact, that world is not feasible for God to create because the president, in those circumstances, would not freely stand on his head.
> There is no difference between "possible" and "feasible for God" since God's
> omnipotence is defined as 'the ability to do everything that is not logically
> impossible".
This is not correct. In fact, it goes completely against the doctrine of middle knowledge!
Just because something is possible does NOT mean it is feasible for God - that's the whole point why the two different words are used.
The example Dr. Craig uses alot is Peter denying Christ three times. Sure, it is POSSIBLE that Peter would freely affirm Christ each time (there is nothing impossible about Peter shouting out "YES, I KNOW, FOLLOW AND LOVE JESUS" when questioned those three times.) He has the free will to do so. BUT! Under those circumstances, in fact, Peter does NOT do that - he freely denies Christ three times.
Therefore, while it is POSSIBLE for Peter to affirm Christ three times (and thus there is a possible world in which he does so), the fact is he does not do so in the actual world. Thus it is not feasible for God to create that possible world because in those circumstances Peter would freely deny Christ three times. God can't MAKE someone freely do something. So this possible world is not feasible for God to create.
That is the distinction between "possible" and "feasible".
Another more funny example I've heard used is "it is possible for President Obama to freely stand on his head and deliver his 2008 inaugural address" - that is a possible world. But in fact, that world is not feasible for God to create because the president, in those circumstances, would not freely stand on his head.
Posted by: belorg
« on: April 20, 2012, 12:21:14 AM »Satria wrote:Hello Philosopher,Recently I have found interesting concept about God omniscience proposed by Dr WLC, namely Middle Knowledge, and intuitively, I think this concept is very promising as explanation for many confusing issue, like perseverance of the saint, retrospective prayer, Christian exclusivism, and many other.But, I didn't really cacth the explanation of this concept itself, and so, this thread raised.........I need help.Here is the questionSuppose we have only 5 possible worlds, say:a. Under Circumstances A, agent X freely choose to do evilb. Under Circumstances B, agent X freely choose to do evilc. Under Circumstances C, agent X freely choose to do evild. Under Circumstances D, agent Y freely choose to do evile. Under Circumstances E, agent Z freely choose to do goodWhich one(s) are feasible for God to be actualized?(I myself guess that feasible worlds are d and e, since these worlds seem to have "room" for free will)Thanks for your thought.(My country doesn't have discussion like this, so your help would be cool)
Since all these world are possible, all these worlds are feasible for God.
There is no difference between 'possible' and 'feasible for God' since God's omnipotence is defined as 'the ability to do everything that is not logically impossible'.
Posted by: Satria Pratama
« on: April 19, 2012, 06:02:46 PM »Hello Philosopher,
Recently I have found interesting concept about God omniscience proposed by Dr WLC, namely Middle Knowledge, and intuitively, I think this concept is very promising as explanation for many confusing issue, like perseverance of the saint, retrospective prayer, Christian exclusivism, and many other.
But, I didn't really cacth the explanation of this concept itself, and so, this thread raised.........I need help.
Here is the question
Suppose we have only 5 possible worlds, say:
a. Under Circumstances A, agent X freely choose to do evil
b. Under Circumstances B, agent X freely choose to do evil
c. Under Circumstances C, agent X freely choose to do evil
d. Under Circumstances D, agent Y freely choose to do evil
e. Under Circumstances E, agent Z freely choose to do good
Which one(s) are feasible for God to be actualized?
(I myself guess that feasible worlds are d and e, since these worlds seem to have "room" for free will)
Thanks for your thought.
(My country doesn't have discussion like this, so your help would be cool)