Molinism and open theism
Molinism is the theory regrading God’s knowledge. The details are as follows. Molinisim says that God have middle knowledge, which are the counterfactual conditionals of human beings. These counterfactual conditionals are not within God’s control. Feasible worlds are a subset of possible worlds. Feasible worlds are the worlds that God can actualise and must be consistent with the conditionals.
Open theism doesn’t agree that God knows future contingent truths. God does not know what human beings will freely choose in the future. It is impossible for God to know the future contingent propositions or the true future contingent propositions doesn't exist.
I think neither of them are good explanations to get away with the problem of evil, because …show more content…
Why doesn’t God fix the world after human comment those moral evil? Even with God not knowing what is going to happen, God still has the power to fix the bad things and kill the existing evil. Open theism is not enough to explain why there is still evil in the world. Molinism is more coherent in explaining this issue. 2. Hume’s argument against miracles are as follows. We should only accept a testimony is reliable when we have repeated experience of the testimony and the truth reported by it. Testimony is the only base for accepting a miracle. Since miracle occurrence is equal to law of nature is violated and the violation of nature is contrary to firm and unalterable experience, but the falsehood of testimony is not, we should never accept the occurrence of a miracle.
According to some religious view, testimony is not the only way that we can accept the occurrence of a miracle. It can justified by something like the religious experience and heart of belief, etc. Therefore we have some base to accept the occurrence of a miracle. If their objections apply, it would undermine Hume’s argument to only testimony based miracle
Molinism is the theory regrading God’s knowledge. The details are as follows. Molinisim says that God have middle knowledge, which are the counterfactual conditionals of human beings. These counterfactual conditionals are not within God’s control. Feasible worlds are a subset of possible worlds. Feasible worlds are the worlds that God can actualise and must be consistent with the conditionals.
Open theism doesn’t agree that God knows future contingent truths. God does not know what human beings will freely choose in the future. It is impossible for God to know the future contingent propositions or the true future contingent propositions doesn't exist.
I think neither of them are good explanations to get away with the problem of evil, because …show more content…
Why doesn’t God fix the world after human comment those moral evil? Even with God not knowing what is going to happen, God still has the power to fix the bad things and kill the existing evil. Open theism is not enough to explain why there is still evil in the world. Molinism is more coherent in explaining this issue. 2. Hume’s argument against miracles are as follows. We should only accept a testimony is reliable when we have repeated experience of the testimony and the truth reported by it. Testimony is the only base for accepting a miracle. Since miracle occurrence is equal to law of nature is violated and the violation of nature is contrary to firm and unalterable experience, but the falsehood of testimony is not, we should never accept the occurrence of a miracle.
According to some religious view, testimony is not the only way that we can accept the occurrence of a miracle. It can justified by something like the religious experience and heart of belief, etc. Therefore we have some base to accept the occurrence of a miracle. If their objections apply, it would undermine Hume’s argument to only testimony based miracle