tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post7137578788207701078..comments2024-02-29T19:21:32.831-05:00Comments on Possible Worlds: Is Middle Knowledge for Me?Randy Everisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-38287456147766506472016-11-21T10:56:41.125-05:002016-11-21T10:56:41.125-05:00Hello, thanks for the question! There are a number...Hello, thanks for the question! There are a number of considerations. First, what if these worlds are largely deterministic? The point is that deterministic worlds would be ruled out as genuine uses for the "point" of creating humans, anyway. So let's look at a better example: worlds where they *freely* resist the temptation. For all we know, these worlds are not feasible for God to create. Or, as Flint puts it, perhaps all of these worlds lie outside of the available "world-galaxy" for God to create. Additionally, perhaps there are many such worlds that lie within the world galaxy available for God to create, but such worlds have far more deleterious consequences (e.g., in such worlds Adam avoids the sin then, but promptly commits a different one, and that world results in far fewer coming to Christ). The bottom line is this is all speculation, and no one knows which world-galaxy, much less which worlds within that world-galaxy, was available for God to actualize. Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-39296583191064457962016-11-12T14:44:47.233-05:002016-11-12T14:44:47.233-05:00If Molinism were true, then God must have knowled...If Molinism were true, then God must have knowledge of an infinite number of worlds where Adam and Eve did not yield to the temptation to eat of the tree. Why didn't God actualize that world and end sin altogether?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-4823743578387665482011-08-29T08:00:05.377-04:002011-08-29T08:00:05.377-04:00I thought so Randy! Often the open view is misunde...I thought so Randy! Often the open view is misunderstood so I just wanted to check.erikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06230791113318147255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-18916032871174037062011-08-28T20:44:02.249-04:002011-08-28T20:44:02.249-04:00Hi Erik thanks for commenting! :) That's why I...Hi Erik thanks for commenting! :) That's why I was careful to write "traditionally" in parenthesees after (1). The orthodox, traditional understanding of omniscience and the open theist's understanding of it differ. Although (1) includes open theists, it also includes process theologians, imperfect-being theists and whatever else might be out there, and is a legitimate reason to reject middle knowledge (were it to be true). Also, (2) encompasses most, if not presumably all, open theists. So those were my thoughts on that issue.Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-9502347711878397772011-08-28T14:39:09.522-04:002011-08-28T14:39:09.522-04:00Open Theists do not reject that God's omniscie...Open Theists do not reject that God's omniscience, they just say that God knows all things, including that which is possible. Open theism isn't so much about what God knows and what he doesn't know, it's more about future possibilities being real. (ontologically)erikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06230791113318147255noreply@blogger.com