DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Classical Theism
HTML https://classicaltheism.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Philosophy
*****************************************************
#Post#: 78--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Necessity of Creation, Revisited
By: Dominik Date: February 12, 2020, 12:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
CLT,
MM (are you John West?) has given you a link which describes the
probably biggest problem of DS, since it includes Divine free
will and the knowledge of contingencies into this one objection.
Unlike Vallicella, I have problems to just go the mysterian
route (I assume that if you had somewhat confirmatory mystical
experiences, then you are way more likely to accept it), but I
also agree with Pruss that we wonīt solve the problem unless we
will be able to witness the divine essence. Perhaps this two
papers will be of interest:
Timothy OīConnor- Simplicity&Creation
(
HTML https://place.asburyseminary.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1762&context=faithandphilosophy)
Alexander Pruss- On Two Problems of Divine Simplicity
(
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1q5JyWcfSM0txLWuRbLzG2aqN_qy5comm/view?usp=sharing)
Generally, since what God knows is identical to what God wills,
Iīd ask if an externalist epistemology of belief would solve
both problems at once, since it preserves contingency without
accidents without requiring a model of divine free will (quite
frankly, we donīt even have a coherent concept of Libertarian
Free Will in us, although we experience it constantly, so
humility is warranted).
I donīt claim that the problems are solved or even that they can
be solved, but I claim that this objection is not a dead end for
the defender and that there are ways to proceed to show that the
contradictions are only apparent.
#Post#: 79--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Necessity of Creation, Revisited
By: Dominik Date: February 12, 2020, 12:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The other alternative to which I have considerable sympathies,
especially after working through the "Guide for the Perplexed",
is just to go full on negative theology. I donīt think that this
is a sacrifice.
#Post#: 81--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Necessity of Creation, Revisited
By: Mackie Messer Date: February 12, 2020, 12:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[Quote=Dominik]Are you John West?[/Quote]
Fans of Die Dreigroschenoper will get the reference:
HTML https://youtu.be/dvCSuWN4eZc?t=150.
#Post#: 82--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Necessity of Creation, Revisited
By: Dominik Date: February 13, 2020, 8:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Iīll take that as a yes. But thanks anyway for explaining the
name.
#Post#: 83--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Necessity of Creation, Revisited
By: Mackie Messer Date: February 13, 2020, 10:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This is just an account I set up to keep an eye on things,
though someone (I don't know who) forced the moderator status on
me.
#Post#: 87--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Necessity of Creation, Revisited
By: Dominik Date: February 16, 2020, 11:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
CLT,
your argument assumes that creation has to have happened, the
big bang is in every possible world. Letīs drop for this
argument the idea of counterfactuals in God, since that is
concerned with contingent knowledge in God.
Here is an argument against the idea of creation following from
God necessarily, which User Brandon has posted in the thread on
Aquinas and the Necessity of Creation:
I'm guessing, though, that your implicit argument is something
like
(1) 'God exists' is necessary
(2) In God, existence and will are identical.
(3) Therefore 'God wills' is necessary (from (1) and (2))
(4) Therefore 'God wills X' is necessary for any X you might
choose. (from (2))
Which, if so, fails regardless of the account of identity; 'God
wills' and 'God wills X' are not generally intersubstitutable
descriptions -- the former is a description of God, and the
latter is a description of God and X. From 'It is necessary that
God wills' to 'It is necessary that God wills such-and-such' is
an equivocation; intransitive and transitive 'wills' are not
synonymous. To get from (3) to (4) you would have to assume that
if it is necessary that God wills, what God wills is necessarily
willed by Him. But this is the very point in dispute.
A similar point has been made by Tomaszewski on the idea of
creation following necessarily, because God is identical to his
will and he exists necessarily. īThe following argument is of
the same structure, but shows the invalidity of said argument
and why the modal collapse objection fails:
1) Necessarily, 8 > 7.
2) The # of planets in our solar system is 8.
3) Necessarily, the # of planets in our solar system is greater
than 7.
So I donīt claim that we can understand how God could create
freely, heck we donīt even really have an idea how it is that WE
are free. But the argument leads to absurdities and hence we
should accept that it is false. I also understand the idea of
God creating nothing at all only insofar as there is not
potential in God that creation fulfills.
#Post#: 91--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Necessity of Creation, Revisited
By: ClassicalLiberal.Theist Date: February 17, 2020, 4:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
your argument assumes that creation has to have happened The
conclusion of my argument is that creation had to have happened;
however, not due to some strict necessitation from Gods being,
but rather because of the impossibility of counterfactuality in
Gods decision making due to his being timeless.
I feel as if your objection is built on a misunderstanding of
what I was trying to argue (which is probably no fault of yours,
but of mine) so I will try to more clearly articulate my
concern.
P1 Time is a necessary condition for counterfactual possibility
P2 God is timeless
P3 So, there is no counterfactual possibility in God
P4 If there is no counterfactual possibility in God, then God
couldn't have chose to create a different possible world; i.e.
the actual world necessarily exists
P5 There is no counterfactual possibility in God
C Therefore, God couldn't have chose to create a different
possible world; i.e. the actual world necessarily exists
#Post#: 92--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Necessity of Creation, Revisited
By: Mackie Messer Date: February 18, 2020, 5:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Absent further justification, reject P1. [emoji106]
#Post#: 94--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Necessity of Creation, Revisited
By: Atno Date: February 20, 2020, 12:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
One rule of thumb to follow in philosophy is to always check out
what Alexander Pruss has written on the subject.
Read Pruss's article on Divine Simplicity, and some of his work
on modal collapse in his articles about leibnizian arguments,
psr etc
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page