Featured Modeling Molinism

Ok...I cannot accuse you of those motives if you deny them. I do enjoy interracting with you. If (and I must assume I am) incorrect, then, I apologize. :flower:

To be honest with you I also have two signifigant quandries about Molinism and you have mentioned one on this thread:

1.) What I call haecceity or this homogeneity of the self:
2.) Molinism seems to commit oneself to a sort of belief in the pre-existence of souls.

Generally, I am only at a point where I think two things:
1.) Although they may seem to be something we don't like... I don't know that our generally negative reaction to them is warranted. Maybe we can't guarantee this homogeneity of the same "self" in a trans-world sense! How can I be SURE I have a right to demand it??? I am sure someone else has a much better answer for that...Maybe this would be a good "Qestion of the Week for WLC!!" It is a legitimate question, and a good one.

2.) I DO know that I have in passing read WLC and some others deny that Molinism commits oneself to a belief in the pre-existence of the soul....but, I only noted their denial and not really their reasoning. Of course, again, as above, I am not sure we can DEMAND that either one of those not be the case (I know I am not expressing myself well here...I hope you understand me.) It may just make it a harder pill to swallow.

 

Since I was mentioned here, might I add a question? Is God involved sequentially and relationally in how creatures freely respond to situations . If so, this conditions subsequent responses as in ovt models. So the analogy of a movie would fit quite nicely with molinism since it is in the can for God. We are on the reel.
You guys are quite intelligent and have rejected ovt at least for it's lack of edf. No problem. Point taken. But you, WLC ,and others have done nothing as a defeater to ovt, only an alternate possibility wich requires a split m.o. for God's relation to time.
Enough from me, suffice it to say that smugness is unseemly and examining our hearts is always wise when seeking truth.:love2::thumbs::love2::thumbs:

 

No worries, I am more guilty than most at least in my heart if not openly. I try to have as few illusions as I can about the uprightness of my character. Have a great day.... Full plate in my lap. Ttyl

 

HoS,

I think you know that I don’t mind talking about the Model of Molinism but it is clear to me HT has simply set out with a ploy to misrepresent the Molinist Model (I should state that this could be being done in ignorance and he does not recognize the tactic I refer to as being a fallacy) and as I've Ad nauseum tried to explain to him he’s done that through the use of a well-known OVT objection to the Molinist Model. Once I became aware of this maneuver happening I pointed to it and not only that after I clearly recognized the roots of this objection, I also demonstrated how HT is mimicking it:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1931912&postcount=32

And I also show WLC dealing with the objection:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1931913&postcount=33


“explanatory priority with respect to the truth of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom”

I even later not only put a title to the objection but began to demonstrate how this OVT objection is also purely fallacious and show how WLC proves it to fail while showing it pins a forfeiture of foreknowledge on those who attempt to use it:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1934516&postcount=85

I then while pointing to his HT failure to recognize his evasive tactics, sarcastically point to his semi-loaded loaded question, point to his semantics in asking the same question, point to how it all goes to begin his argument on a misrepresentation of the Molinist Model. I attempt to explain in my own words how I have just shown him and how I am in agreement with WLC that his (OVTs) non-sequitur objection is fallacious on two fronts. It does not pertain to the Molinist Model and it forfeits a belief of foreknowledge on the part of the one making it while they deny the truths of CCFs!

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1934780&postcount=90

His objection to the Model’s proficiency does not change the Model in any way. His (fallacious) conclusion based on his objection does not change the Model in any way. Him asking the same questions rooted to the same objection by using different semantics each time over and over Ad nauseum does not change that he is merely disagreeing through objecting to the Molinist Model and NOT to what Molinist Model itself claims!

I don’t mind HT trying to object to the Molinist Model itself. I have no problem dealing with the objection OVT makes against Molinism outright as a separate topic; that would actually be fun because it makes OVT look stupid for making it, Haha. But, WHAT I do mind is HT trying to use that objection (which amounts to nothing more than a commonly known and thoroughly dealt with OVT fallacious ploy to put down Molinism and simultaneously supposedly build up OVT’s view; I have pointed to this issue Ad nauseum!), and even after him being shown that his diagram to that non-sequitur objection, which contains a fallacious conclusion due to a "false premise" (it goes against the truth contained in CCFs, it pins OVT into forfeiting Divine foreknowledge, and it denies the component of Molinism’s “Middle Knowledge” as if it doesn’t exist which in fact both: preserves foreknowledge and dispells things being "already determined") ...THEN after being in the mind thought of this objection HT goes forward Ad nauseum with questions that consist of the component of: “demanding an explanation from the Molinist Model before recognizing the explanation of the Molinist Model to exist” meaning HT does not give “respect to the truth CCFs and Molinism’s explanation that Middle Knowledge exists and by their reasoning all things are not determined” and then HT thinking, "Ahh, I got you now!", asks his questions to the effect of, “Since Molinism believes all things are “already determined”…yada, yada, yada…

:BangHead:

HT is obviously not here to learn of the Molinist Model, I think you suspect that too, but me being more blunt, I believe what he is doing amounts to nothing more than he is here to put down the Molinist Model by using that stupid OVT objection every time of the Molinist Model instead of actually dealing with what the Molinist actually consists of which is Middle Knowledge based on CCFs which works to retain Divine foreknowledge and put down Deterministic views!

HT’s attempts to change the Model and assign components to it from within his (OVTs) conclusions regarding its proficiency pertaining to that objection are what is troublesome. It is painfully obvious to me HT wants to take “his” personally re-reconstructed “Model of Molinism” with “his” components added in that do not belong to the Molinist Model and then go forth to argue that the Model is not logically sound. I’m simply not interested in arguing to support “his” own personalized custom “Molinist Model” against whatever it is that he can now very “conveniently” come up with to show it not logical. Do YOU hear what I a saying?!?

:BangHead:

I don’t mind arguing either philosophically or scripturally to support the Molinist Model. But, I have no interest in arguing against this invention of HT’s which he has clearly shown he intends to insist is the Molinist Model. I don’t want to get into his motives either, for all I know he may actually believe he is presenting valid argument. Unfortunately, if you misrepresent the opponent’s argument by using a false presume to assign to the opponent’s argument then it is OBVIOUSLY not the opponent’s argument you are arguing against! Duh!

Whatever it is he seems to think he is gaining by using this ploy and seems to also think it is fair to start an argument on such a premise; He has continued to insist his version which “he” built from nothing but an objection to the Molinist Model. I’m sorry, but that’s just ridiculous to think I should be interested in defending against his contrived efforts to build a strawman.

Further, I find it troublesome that HT says he wants to learn about the Molinist Model but yet refuses to let go of this OVT objection to even let explanations begin on how the true Molinist Model can logically work! This asking to explain the Molinist Model has turned into nothing more than a game of “try to defeat HT’s strawman Molinist Model by first defeating HT’s (OVT’s) objection to the Model!" Thus my reference to "explanatory priori" fallacious objection...

HT: Okay, let’s begin, the Molinist Model says these things are “already determined prior” these things are “historically determined prior”, “all events are determined prior” yada, yada. yada….

I’ve asked, “Where do you find actualizations “already determined” in the Molinist Model again??? I show things are not “already determined” while dealing with his suggestions that “I” am not accurately presenting the Molinist Model so I quote from WLC that Molinism does NOT believe things are “already determined”:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1934516&postcount=85

Ht comes back and asks, “What do you mean by “buddy”? In disregard of what I just covered and then, HT: Okay, let’s begin again another way, the Molinist Model says these things are “historically determined prior”…

Do you see what I have been trying to put a lid on here since the beginning of HT asking “us” to present the Molinist Model while he continually goes about to misrepresent it?

:BangHead:

If so, can you maybe explain the “PROBLEM” here better than I have managed to?

:BangHead: