Critiquing "Counterfactual" of Molinism

[Arial]

The latter is a bogus concept.

Yep. If God is God as he reveals himself, there is no such thing as chance or chance contingencies----even if "chance" is put in quotes.

 

[Josheb]

The latter is a bogus concept.

Which is exactly what I said later in the post.

By one use of "contingencies", in, "contingencies of secondary causes", the contingencies would be whatever caused those secondary causes, but I don't think that is what WCF is referring to, though the same "...does not do violence to..." would work there, too.

Are you the arbiter of the Confession and should I take that to mean your view and not the normal, ordinary definition of the words is what everyone should necessarily understand when reading the WCF?

I am not familiar with the term, 'contingent', used as a noun, except in special cases. It is an adjective. I suppose one could use it as a noun, 'short for' "a contingent fact". I am familiar with the use of it as a stand-alone descriptive term, and adverbial(?), in saying that x is contingent on y.

Yes, X could be contingent on Y. X could also be contingently contingent on Y, according to the WCF.

The WCF reference to contingencies of secondary causes, I suppose could be taken to mean only the unforeseeable (by us) results of secondary causes, but that does not mean that those results are unknown to God, nor even unintended by God.

Perhaps, but the creature's perspective is not asserted anywhere in Article 3. You would have to first justify that context before applying it.

It does not imply randomness or chance, nor spontaneity of moral agents.

I have never claimed it did.

It only would mean, (in my opinion, of course), that God does not, or is not in the habit of, interrupting the usual course of cause-and-effect. It is an affirmation of the law of causation, and it prohibits superstitious explanations for cause-and-effect.

Yes, but the law of causation need not be solely singular. I think this is one of the points where you err, or at least have not sufficiently thought it through. Again, I draw attention to the simple comparison between a god who can cause only one single, singular cause-and-effect which, in turn, causes only one other single, singular cause-and-effect and a God that can cause a multitudinal cause with potentially infinite (or simply astronomically numerous) effects, each of which also causes a multitude of effects. The former god is not a God. The former god is not God.

The "chains" of causation are a huge web of chains --not a series of long single chains.

Yes, they are and, according to the WCF many of them are secondary, not primary, causes that have contingencies, not (just) contingents.

 

[Binyawmene]

Thanks for this. I'll get to it when I'm a little less fuzzy-headed. BTW this was a text that @TonyChanYT dealt with in similar fashion, maybe not on this site but on CF. I had a disagreement with what I thought he was saying, but I don't remember what about.

I've tried to have a discussion with Tony before. I will look forward you critiquing post 16. And if you have any questions about conditionals, then I will try to answer them. Keep up the good work.

 

[Josheb]

I've tried to have a discussion with Tony before. I will look forward you critiquing post 16. And if you have any questions about conditionals, then I will try to answer them. Keep up the good work.

Tony doesn't engage in a lot of discussion, and I do not believe I have ever seen him discuss someone else's op. On the occasion when he does engage in discourse, I find he and I more often than not agree - although the conversation may not begin that way. It's that way in most of the forums in which he's a member, not just this one. The fact that discourse usually begets consensus would seem to provide sufficient reason for frequent engagement.

 

[Binyawmene]

Tony doesn't engage in a lot of discussion, and I do not believe I have ever seen him discuss someone else's op. On the occasion when he does engage in discourse, I find he and I more often than not agree - although the conversation may not begin that way. It's that way in most of the forums in which he's a member, not just this one. The fact that discourse usually begets consensus would seem to provide sufficient reason for frequent engagement.

Thanks for the additional information. Would you like to offer your thoughts on post 16? It's open to anyone who want to critique, disagree, support, or even make the argument stronger. Your opinions will be appreciated and encouraged.

 

[Josheb]

Would you like to offer your thoughts on post 16? It's open to anyone who want to critique, disagree, support, or even make the argument stronger. Your opinions will be appreciated and encouraged.

Well.....

I find the presentation of the Molinist position in the op fairly accurate and that's commendable. However, the syllogism of Post 16 is flawed because it's simply an exercise in reasoning, not reality, and the constituent elements of the syllogism are not defined. The simple fact is Jesus did preach in Sodom and the city was saved and the city was not saved. Or, to be accurate, cities do not get saved. The people living in cities get saved. Furthermore, we can infer some may have been saved because if none were saved then the only purpose for Jesus going there and preaching would be to secure those people's judgment, not their salvation. Any salvific purpose Jesus might have had would have been fruitless and Jesus is never fruitless. I do not believe Jesus was speaking hypothetically about Sodom, either. Metaphorically, perhaps, but not hypothetically.

There are lots of problems like that in both the op and Post 16.

When I read it, I was reminded of David Hunt's argument from simple foreknowledge in the book I mentioned. Hunt tries to leverage Zeno's Paradox in which a fast runner is never able to pass a slow turtle because during the time to takes the runner to reach half the distance the turtle has traveled the turtle will have added more distance to the total which, when halved again, will yet have more added and, therefore, the fast runner will never catch (much less pass) the turtle and win the race. On one hand it's one of the more intelligent arguments I have read from Hunt is so idiotically sophomoric in everything he says that it astounds me that anyone would think him a sufficiently articulate spokesperson for anything. Logically, the runner passes the turtle in his first stride. That's what happens in reality. That is the actual "counterfactual."

I chose not to deconstruct those posts because a forensic analysis won't likely be born well, will likely lead to digression, and neither is going to serve the purpose of the op. It's best if I simply join you in decrying Molinism as logically inconsistent with itself (not just the whole of scripture) and therefore untenable.








* Hunt also fails by asserting the position that God's foreknowledge is consequent to His having looked down the timeline. That position inherently and necessarily negates any possibility of omniscience (because God would not know unless and until He looked). It's just a dumb argument, but that's one of the benefits of reading comparative works: mistakes and idiocy can be observed in contrast to sounder, better argued, positions. But those are matters for another op.
.

 

[Binyawmene]

I do not believe Jesus was speaking hypothetically about Sodom, either. Metaphorically, perhaps, but not hypothetically.

What made you come to this conclusion? What is the difference between "like as" and "what if" scenarios? Metaphorical usage of language for comparison is "like," "as," "resembles," and sometimes "then." Here is example from Matthew 13:31 "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed." On the other hand, a counterfactual uses "if" for example in Matthew 11:23 "For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom." Jesus is clearly speaking in hypothetical, and the conclusion indicates the hypothetical "it would have remained to this day." In the actual Jesus didn't perform miracles in Sodom in the same manner he performed in Capernaum and in the actual, Sodom was destroyed. But in the hypothetical scenario "IF Jesus was performing miracles in Sodom, the people would have repented in contrast to unrepented Capernaum, and Sodom would have remained to this day. Of course, we know that didn't happen, it's hypothetical and not actual. Logic stands firm on F, F, T.

 

[makesends]

The simple fact is Jesus did preach in Sodom and the city was saved and the city was not saved.

Huh?

 

[makesends]

Well.....

I find the presentation of the Molinist position in the op fairly accurate and that's commendable. However, the syllogism of Post 16 is flawed because it's simply an exercise in reasoning, not reality, and the constituent elements of the syllogism are not defined. The simple fact is Jesus did preach in Sodom and the city was saved and the city was not saved. Or, to be accurate, cities do not get saved. The people living in cities get saved. Furthermore, we can infer some may have been saved because if none were saved then the only purpose for Jesus going there and preaching would be to secure those people's judgment, not their salvation. Any salvific purpose Jesus might have had would have been fruitless and Jesus is never fruitless. I do not believe Jesus was speaking hypothetically about Sodom, either. Metaphorically, perhaps, but not hypothetically.

I would agree with that last, only if 'hypothetically' (concerning the past) can only refer to something along the lines of counterfactuals. I agree completely that Jesus is not saying that it could have happened.

There are lots of problems like that in both the op and Post 16.

When I read it, I was reminded of David Hunt's argument from simple foreknowledge in the book I mentioned. Hunt tries to leverage Zeno's Paradox in which a fast runner is never able to pass a slow turtle because during the time to takes the runner to reach half the distance the turtle has traveled the turtle will have added more distance to the total which, when halved again, will yet have more added and, therefore, the fast runner will never catch (much less pass) the turtle and win the race. On one hand it's one of the more intelligent arguments I have read from Hunt is so idiotically sophomoric in everything he says that it astounds me that anyone would think him a sufficiently articulate spokesperson for anything. Logically, the runner passes the turtle in his first stride. That's what happens in reality. That is the actual "counterfactual."

Dave Hunt is kind of, well, nevermind... I don't read him nor listen to him, his arguments so full of strawmen and goal-shifting till he seems (to me) incoherent. His arguments are not consistently cogent.

I chose not to deconstruct those posts because a forensic analysis won't likely be born well, will likely lead to digression, and neither is going to serve the purpose of the op. It's best if I simply join you in decrying Molinism as logically inconsistent with itself (not just the whole of scripture) and therefore untenable.

I'm with you there!

* Hunt also fails by asserting the position that God's foreknowledge is consequent to His having looked down the timeline. That position inherently and necessarily negates any possibility of omniscience (because God would not know unless and until He looked). It's just a dumb argument, but that's one of the benefits of reading comparative works: mistakes and idiocy can be observed in contrast to sounder, better argued, positions. But those are matters for another op.
.

(OT, but what I've read and heard by Hunt to me represents maybe even much of "Christian Literature" being written the last 50 years or so. So many arguments are made by stating the thesis, representing the symptoms of whatever the thesis decries, showing from scripture that the symptoms are sin or whatever else the Bible says about them, then suddenly the jump in logic "proves", by the fact that the Bible recognizes those symptoms, too, that the thesis is legitimate, to include its solutions in the thesis. (That's poorly stated, but I guess you get my point).

It's the same thing that we so often see thrown at Reformed posts, where claims are made by the antagonist that THEY at least, "proved" their thesis by scripture, when they've done no such thing. If they claim their opponent is disobedient to the scriptures, they quote scriptures about how bad it is to be disobedient to scriptures, but nothing to show that it is their opponent that is disobedient. And pointing out to Dave just how his logic fails .... doesn't change his mind. He's on a mission and he doesn't care what is being said.

 

[Binyawmene]

Huh?

Hypothetically?

But that's the twist, in Molinism, all counterfactuals imply possible futures. And counterfactuals were once possible outcomes that God foreknown before he tampered with libertarian free will by his decrees. And when Jesus is referencing a hypothetical scenario. He is not indicating a possible future 'that could have occurred' before God declared his decrees. As if things could have turned out differently. And these so-called possible futures derived out of free will of humans isn't based on the sequence of time when man make their choices like Open Theism, rather it's viewed in the eternal timeless sense from his foreknowledge. For instance,

a). God foreknew a possible future could occur for Sodom. (Matthew 11:23).​

​

b). God foreknew a possible future could occur for Judas. (Matthew 26:24).​

​

b). God foreknew a possible future for Armageddon could occur in Christ's first coming. (Matthew 26:52-54).​

​

c). God foreknew a possible future for the Kingdom could occur in Christ's first coming. (John 18:36).​

As I have already pointed out in post 16:

"...to identify a counterfactual, then it's based upon a conditional statement that is understood in a two-fold application. First, it involves a 'condition' that's contrary to the actual world, and secondly, it expresses truth that belongs to the actual world. In other words, counterfactual is a conditional statement that is contrary to the actual world, and yet, possesses truth content of the actual world."​

But that's the thing, nobody cannot propose an factual answer involving the correspondence of what already has happen in the actual reality. By definition a counterfactual is to counter (or act in opposition to) the factual of our known actual reality. It does not have any actual reality to which we may peg its truth. In essence counterfactual conditional is a hypothetical of a What If, nothing more and nothing less. The possibilities of 1-3 on post 16 has no bases in what actually happen in reality. That's why possibility 4 is what happen F,F,T.

 

[makesends]

But that's the twist, in Molinism, all counterfactuals imply possible futures. And counterfactuals were once possible outcomes that God foreknown before he tampered with libertarian free will by his decrees. And when Jesus is referencing a hypothetical scenario. He is not indicating a possible future 'that could have occurred' before God declared his decrees. As if things could have turned out differently. And these so-called possible futures derived out of free will of humans isn't based on the sequence of time when man make their choices like Open Theism, rather it's viewed in the eternal timeless sense from his foreknowledge. For instance,

a). God foreknew a possible future could occur for Sodom. (Matthew 11:23).b). God foreknew a possible future could occur for Judas. (Matthew 26:24).b). God foreknew a possible future for Armageddon could occur in Christ's first coming. (Matthew 26:52-54).c). God foreknew a possible future for the Kingdom could occur in Christ's first coming. (John 18:36).
As I have already pointed out in post 16:

"...to identify a counterfactual, then it's based upon a conditional statement that is understood in a two-fold application. First, it involves a 'condition' that's contrary to the actual world, and secondly, it expresses truth that belongs to the actual world. In other words, counterfactual is a conditional statement that is contrary to the actual world, and yet, possesses truth content of the actual world."

Ha! I like the way you put that; they go to a whole lot of trouble to justify the absurdity.

But that's the thing, nobody cannot propose an factual answer involving the correspondence of what already has happen in the actual reality. By definition a counterfactual is to counter (or act in opposition to) the factual of our known actual reality. It does not have any actual reality to which we may peg its truth. In essence counterfactual conditional is a hypothetical of a What If, nothing more and nothing less. The possibilities of 1-3 on post 16 has no bases in what actually happen in reality. That's why possibility 4 is what happen F,F,T.

Agreed, except I'll have to go back to #16 to figure out what you are referring to. I don't have one of those laptops that has 3 screens.

 

[Josheb]

What made you come to this conclusion?

There are several reasons, one of which I have already posted (cities aren't judged, people are), but I'll mention two. First of all, the judgment has already been rendered. John 3:17-20 make it clear the judgment has already been rendered.

John 3:17-20 NIV
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed.

The verdict has already been rendered. We should, therefore, understand that all those mentions of judgment, "judgment day," or "day of judgment," are more accurately understood as sentencing day, the day when the just recompence for our action/inaction/faith/faithlessness are meted out. Everyone who does not believe in Jesus' name is already condemned. They just don't know it. That would include everyone in Sodom, just as much as it includes everyone in Jerusalem, Washington, DC, and Steubenville, OH. Second, it is important to keep in mind, there is only one divine response to sin: death. All the non-believers in Sodom suffer the exact same fate as the non-believers in Jerusalem; they all get tossed into the fiery lake or furnace. Therefore, when Jesus says the sentencing will be "more tolerable for the land of Sodom," it is necessarily understood given the fact "it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all," and God condemning Sodom "by reducing them to ashes." Reduction to ashes and destroying them all was tolerance. Unless you can find something worse than destruction, we also necessarily understand Jesus was speaking with some degree of hyperbole. Sodom was completely destroyed, and it'll be better for Sodom than those who deny Jesus. Maybe God will double-destroy or triple destroy the latter .

What is the difference between "like as" and "what if" scenarios? Metaphorical usage of language for comparison is "like," "as," "resembles," and sometimes "then." Here is example from Matthew 13:31 "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed." On the other hand, a counterfactual uses "if" for example in Matthew 11:23 "For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom." Jesus is clearly speaking in hypothetical, and the conclusion indicates the hypothetical "it would have remained to this day." In the actual Jesus didn't perform miracles in Sodom in the same manner he performed in Capernaum and in the actual, Sodom was destroyed. But in the hypothetical scenario "IF Jesus was performing miracles in Sodom, the people would have repented in contrast to unrepented Capernaum, and Sodom would have remained to this day. Of course, we know that didn't happen, it's hypothetical and not actual. Logic stands firm on F, F, T.

Getting lost in the weeds.

The passage begins with a factual statement: Jesus began to denounce the cities in which he'd performed miracles. Jesus words following that statement simply describe his denunciation. If Jesus denunciation is to be understood as related to Matthew 10:32-33, then what Jesus is saying is these folks 1) have already been condemned (Jn 3 above) and 2) Jesus will not be testifying on their behalf when they stand before his Father (Rom. 8:33-34). Jesus spoke to the crowds and Jewish leaders in parables, and he did so "lest they repent and be healed," but parables were not the only literary device he used. Jesus employed most, if not all, of the literary devices we now take for granted (which is one of the things that makes the Bible such an extraordinary book). Jesus' appeal to Tyre and Sodom were allusions. His audience would have recalled those past events and understood them, at a minimum, in the context of Jesus' claim to be the Messiah.

Btw, if you do a study of Matthew from this point on you will notice that Jesus' parables turn increasingly on the theme of judgment and the judgment is increasingly pointed at Jerusalem and the Jewish leaders. This progression culminates in chapters 21 through the opening verses of chapter 26. Those five chapters describe a single day, the day after Jesus entered Jerusalem for the last time. A few days later he'd be tried, judged, sentenced, and dead. Those that killed him would be doubly condemned .​

We also know Jesus was speaking hypothetically because miracles do not cause salvation. Jesus cannot be interpreted to be saying there is any kind of causal link between his performing miracles and that cities coming to him for salvation. That kind of interpretation would directly contradict what Jesus said about those who demand miracles. Furthermore, Matthew 13:58 reports few miracles were done in those places because of their unbelief. In other words, the unbelief preceded the performance (or withholding) of miracles, not the other way around. Mark 6:1-6 expounds upon that dynamic, with Jesus performing a few miracles and still being rejected so no more miracles were performed. Lastly, a miracle did, in fact, occur in both Sodom. Fire came down from heaven and destroyed it. What greater miracle could there possibly be than for someone to come back from the dead?

Luke 16:31
But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.

Now put all of that together with, "if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day" and it is necessarily understood not to be a causal statement but one of rhetorical contrast. And the fundamental point of it was that Jesus was rendering judgment on his audience right then and there but most, if not all, of them were too blind and dumb to understand it. It just continued to get worse and worse from that point on.

 

[Josheb]

Huh?

Do you see fire normally falling from the heavens to turn cities into ash?

I would agree with that last, only if 'hypothetically' (concerning the past) can only refer to something along the lines of counterfactuals. I agree completely that Jesus is not saying that it could have happened.

Please be more specific. What. specifically, is Jesus not saying could have happened? And how is that relevant to the fact Jesus did perform miracles in Sodom, Sodom was previously destroyed, and Sodom's inhabitants will all face sentencing?

Dave Hunt is kind of, well, nevermind... I don't read him nor listen to him, his arguments so full of strawmen and goal-shifting till he seems (to me) incoherent. His arguments are not consistently cogent.

I'm with you there!

(OT, but what I've read and heard by Hunt to me represents maybe even much of "Christian Literature" being written the last 50 years or so. So many arguments are made by stating the thesis, representing the symptoms of whatever the thesis decries, showing from scripture that the symptoms are sin or whatever else the Bible says about them, then suddenly the jump in logic "proves", by the fact that the Bible recognizes those symptoms, too, that the thesis is legitimate, to include its solutions in the thesis. (That's poorly stated, but I guess you get my point).

It's the same thing that we so often see thrown at Reformed posts, where claims are made by the antagonist that THEY at least, "proved" their thesis by scripture, when they've done no such thing. If they claim their opponent is disobedient to the scriptures, they quote scriptures about how bad it is to be disobedient to scriptures, but nothing to show that it is their opponent that is disobedient. And pointing out to Dave just how his logic fails .... doesn't change his mind. He's on a mission and he doesn't care what is being said.

 

[Binyawmene]

Now put all of that together with, "if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day" and it is necessarily understood not to be a causal statement but one of rhetorical contrast. And the fundamental point of it was that Jesus was rendering judgment on his audience right then and there but most, if not all, of them were too blind and dumb to understand it. It just continued to get worse and worse from that point on.

Except that is not how I see the Greek grammar functionality for "if" in Matthew 11:23:

"...For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day."​

Original Word: εἰ a primary particle of conditionality

Usage: The Greek conjunction "εἰ" (ei) is primarily used to introduce conditional clauses, often translated as "if" or "whether" in English. It sets up a condition that must be met for the main clause to be true or applicable. This particle is essential in forming hypothetical statements, questions, and expressions of doubt or uncertainty. It is a fundamental component in Greek syntax for expressing conditionality and potentiality.​

The miracles that Jesus' performed in Capernaum was in the same manner performed in Sodom is the contrast. And Capernaum is spoken in the third person "you" (vs. 23) and "has taken place" is the verb expressing the condition. The dilemma shows an unrepentant and prideful human action that demands judgement for Capernaum. Even though, Jesus himself didn't performed miracles in Sodom, which means, he is setting up a hypothetical scenario. The word "if" is subjunctive mood for a logical antecedent. While the logical consequent is the conclusion that reveals the outcome of the hypothetical scenario for Sodom "would have remained to this day" (vs. 23) is a aorist active indicative verb. The antecedent "if" is implying the consequent is very clear in Jesus' statement.

Berean Study Bible states:
it would have remained to this day.

This hypothetical statement highlights the potential for repentance and transformation through witnessing God's power. It implies that Sodom's destruction could have been averted if it had experienced the same miraculous works as Capernaum. The enduring presence of Sodom would have been a testament to God's mercy in response to genuine repentance, contrasting with Capernaum's missed opportunity.​

 

[Josheb]

Except that is not how I see the Greek grammar functionality for "if" in Matthew 11:23:

"...For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day."​

You're doing it again: imagining an elaborate analysis changes things. I encourage you to read D. A. Carson's "Exegetical Fallacies," if it hasn't already been read.

That post does not change the facts of the scripture, nor the points I made at all. Jesus is NOT making a causal statement. It would be both unscriptural and irrational of him to teach miracles cause salvation. This ought to be self-evident. The minute anyone reaches for their Greek grammar book and Strong's concordance they've lost the argument. The meaning of "if" is not that complicated that such effort is needed. That examination of "if" does not change the fact miracles were performed in Sodom. The examine of the "if" does not change the fact there probably were a few who were saved there, and perhaps others would be saved as a consequence of later hearing the gospel. Jesus is not making an exhaustive statement. The examination of the "if" does not change the fact there's only one punishment for not believing in Jesus and anyone and everyone in Sodom who does not believe will suffer the exact same fate as those denying Jesus in Jerusalem, London, Caracas, and every other hamlet, town, and city in the world.

Galatians 6:7-8
Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will reap destruction from the flesh, but the one who sows to the Spirit will reap eternal life from the Spirit.

That is it. There are only two options. It's a simple binary equation and either eternal life or eternal destruction. There's no third option. There's no middle ground where God says, "Let me destroy you a little bit, maybe just a little bit more than that last guy and then I'll save you." Common sense and basic reason applied to the whole of scripture tells us Jesus was speaking rhetorically. His audience already stood there deaf to his words in their already-existing state of condemnation...... just as God had said would happen many centuries earlier.


Isaiah 6:8-10
Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?" Then I said, "Here am I. Send me!" He said, "Go, and tell this people: 'Keep on listening, but do not perceive; Keep on looking, but do not understand.' "Render the hearts of this people insensitive, their ears dull, and their eyes dim, otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and return and be healed."

And that is exactly what happened.

Matthew 13:11-15
And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: 'You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive.' For this people’s heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them."

God fulfilled His prophecy.

God foreknew what would happen and, in this case, God acted proactively to make it happen and He did so without ever consulting anyone. N examination of "if" can change these facts and while it might be good practice, it is unnecessary.

Molinism fails.

 

[Binyawmene]

Jesus is NOT making a causal statement.

Of course. Jesus is speaking hypothetical.

It would be both unscriptural and irrational of him to teach miracles cause salvation.

Irrelevant. Never suggested it and it's not the issue. Molinism is a philosophical and logical argument based on word "if" subjunctive for a logical antecedent. Their argument is saying that counterfactual conditionals or hypotheticals is a possible future. We, both, agree that is false which is the aim of the OP. What we disagree on is how the word "if" being applied. And I have demonstrated this in Matthew 11:23 and you haven't refuted that is the case. Now since Jesus has spoken in hypothetical, you have yet to address post 16. I suppose you could keep disagreeing with the Greek grammar I've presented. Do so by all mean. It doesn't address post 16.

This ought to be self-evident.

Yes, Jesus spoke hypothetical in Matthew 11:23 is self-evident.

The minute anyone reaches for their Greek grammar book and Strong's concordance they've lost the argument.

Asserted assumption and straw man. Using Greek and concordance doesn't imply someone lost an argument.

The meaning of "if" is not that complicated that such effort is needed. That examination of "if" does not change the fact miracles were performed in Sodom. The examine of the "if" does not change the fact there probably were a few who were saved there, and perhaps others would be saved as a consequence of later hearing the gospel. Jesus is not making an exhaustive statement. The examination of the "if" does not change the fact there's only one punishment for not believing in Jesus and anyone and everyone in Sodom who does not believe will suffer the exact same fate as those denying Jesus in Jerusalem, London, Caracas, and every other hamlet, town, and city in the world.

Because "if" is the hypothetical. The logical demonstrates that these events did not occur in the actual.

1. Possibility one: "If miracles were performed in Sodom" T = True, and "then Sodom would have remained to this day" T = True. Jesus performed miracles in Sodom is True. Only true, if and only if, the event has occurred.​

​

2. Possibility two: "If miracles were performed in Sodom" T = True, and "then Sodom would have remained to this day" F = False. Jesus performed miracles in Sodom is False. Only false, if and only if, the event has occurred.​

​

3. Possibility three: "If miracles were performed in Sodom" F = False, and "then Sodom would have remained to this day" T = True. Jesus performed miracles in Sodom is True. Only true, if and only if, the event has occurred.​

What is true, if and only if, in the actual -

4. Possibility four: "If miracles were performed in Sodom" F = False, and "then Sodom would have remained to this day" F = False. Jesus performed miracles in Sodom is True. Only true, if and only if, the event has occurred.​

If you cannot understand the basic logic being demonstrated here, then more than like, you won't understand the advance logic. Either address my argument or move on. No need for you obfuscation over clear basic logic of Jesus' statement with your unintelligible Greek grammar and the additional information about Capernaum and Sodom which is irrelevant to the topic. Since you don't believe Jesus' statement isn't hypothetical, then no need to further out that discussion. I rather talk to someone who does know it's hypothetical and who can present logical arguments.

 

[makesends]

Thank you. I will demonstrate a proof-texting verse from Matthew 11:23 which is out of its context.

I will also define what a logical conditional is for the readers of this thread so they can understand. I want to point out that to identify a counterfactual, then it's based upon a conditional statement that is understood in a two-fold application. First, it involves a 'condition' that's contrary to the actual world, and secondly, it expresses truth that belongs to the actual world. In other words, counterfactual is a conditional statement that is contrary to the actual world, and yet, possesses truth content of the actual world.

What is a logical conditional statement? A logical conditional is consisting of two statements joined by a connective "if, then" (a truth-functional operator --->) to form a compound sentence.

Matthew 11:23 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day.​

For instance, P--->Q

P = "If miracles were performed in Sodom"​

Q = then Sodom would have remained to this day"​

​

While the two statement flanking each other are constituents called antecedent and consequent. Now the word “if” is a hypothesis and the word “then” is the conclusion. And the word “implied” means “always results in” which the antecedent is implying the consequent.​

​

Logical Conditional P --->Q
“If miracles were performed in Sodom, then Sodom would have remained to this day.”

Antecedent P
If miracles were performed in Sodom

Consequent Q
then Sodom would have remained to this day.​

​

The Logical Conditional rules states: “A conditional P --->Q is false, if and only if, antecedent P is true and consequent Q is false, otherwise it’s all true.”​

​

So, help me here. Are you calling the antecedent P, whether or not it is true, the statement including the "If", or the statement after the "If". I don't see how, "If miracles were performed in Sodom" can be true nor false, if it includes the IF. Now to say "miracles were performed in Sodom" can be true or false, because it is a complete statement. So which is the antecedent that can be true or false --that is, does the antecedent include the IF, or is it merely identified by the IF? It the actual antecedent, which can be true or false, does not actually include the "If" then please rewrite this where I can follow along. If the statement including the IF can be true or false, then please explain how.

Again, "If miracles were performed in Sodom" is neither true nor false. I'm sorry for being picky, but I'm not following what you are saying because of (at least) this.

You have four outcomes from the Truth Table.​

​

1. Possibility one: "If miracles were performed in Sodom" T = True, and "then Sodom would have remained to this day" T = True. Jesus performed miracles in Sodom is True. Only true, if and only if, the event has occurred.​

​

2. Possibility two: "If miracles were performed in Sodom" T = True, and "then Sodom would have remained to this day" F = False. Jesus performed miracles in Sodom is False. Only false, if and only if, the event has occurred.​

​

3. Possibility three: "If miracles were performed in Sodom" F = False, and "then Sodom would have remained to this day" T = True. Jesus performed miracles in Sodom is True. Only true, if and only if, the event has occurred.​

​

4. Possibility four: "If miracles were performed in Sodom" F = False, and "then Sodom would have remained to this day" F = False. Jesus performed miracles in Sodom is True. Only true, if and only if, the event has occurred.​

​

We know the actual outcome of each of the four possibilities. We know that those towns' people didn’t repent, and we know those towns were destroyed based on the information of the Bible. Our truth table chart would read F, F, T. But Jesus Christ did not lie about his statement because he was only speaking hypothetical about Sodom in contrast to the miracles, he did perform in unrepented towns. This is not suggesting a possible future for Sodom and judgement already happen. Rather, Sodom would have repented if he performed miracles in the same manner that he performed in those unrepented towns. Context is key, in Matthew 11, verses 20 and 24 is never quoted when by Molinist but simply proof texting. Jesus' contrasting does not mean he is talking about a possible future for Sodom.​

​

In context:​

​

Then Jesus began to denounce the towns in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.​

 

[Binyawmene]

So, help me here.

I suppose the truth table for conditionals can be tricky to interpret. The word ‘antecedent P’ means “that which leads," (regardless if it's true or false) and the word ‘consequent Q’ means “that which follows" (regardless if it's true or false). Both P and Q is the whole constituents. And the truth table gives us four possible cases for the value of P and Q.

The Logical Conditional rules states: “A conditional P --->Q is false, if and only if, antecedent P is true and consequent Q is false, otherwise it’s all true.”

1. First row you have T, T, and T.
If P that which leads is true, then Q will immediately follow as true. It's reasonable to assume the whole constituents is true because P imply Q.

*Remember that the P is doing the leading or implying, so the second, third, and fourth rows must follow this line of reasoning too.

2. Second row you have T, F, and F.
If P that which leads is true, then Q didn't follow as true because it's false. It's reasonable to assume the whole constituents is false because P didn't imply Q.

3. Third row you have F, T, and T.
If P that which leads is false, then Q will immediately follow happens to be true. It's reasonable to assume the whole constituents is true because P imply Q.

4. Fourth row you have F, F, and T.
If P that which leads is false, then Q will immediately follow as false. It's reasonable to assume the whole constituents is true because P imply Q.

Are you calling the antecedent P, whether or not it is true, the statement including the "If", or the statement after the "If".

The word "if" in this instance is hypothetical.

“If miracles were performed in Sodom, then Sodom would have remained to this day.”

Both constituents of P and Q I've viewed this from the actual position from what we already know that has occurred in actual world. The possibilities cases for 1-3 is not applied in the actual world. If you believe P and Q is applied to one of the possibilities, then you have to demonstrate that is the case.

What happen in the actual world?

1). Jesus did not perform miracles in Sodom.
2). Sodom was judged and destroyed.

Compared to

1). “If miracles were performed in Sodom." Is false in the actual world.
2). "then Sodom would have remained to this day.” Is false in the actual world.

It's reasonable to assume the whole constituents itself is true because P imply Q. The logical form of a conditional doesn't depend on something is actually true or actually false. No matter how absurd, like "If a banana tree is planted in the air, then it doesn't require soil." We know in the real actual world that is not the case. The logical form of a conditional itself isn't invalid. No matter how ridiculous a statement might be. The idea can be absurd and irrational but the logical form itself is true.

I don't see how, "If miracles were performed in Sodom" can be true nor false, if it includes the IF.

Then you have to negate antecedent P.

~P

Or, are you negating the whole constituents of P--->Q

~(P--->Q)

Now to say "miracles were performed in Sodom" can be true or false, because it is a complete statement. So which is the antecedent that can be true or false --that is, does the antecedent include the IF, or is it merely identified by the IF?

It doesn't matter if the antecedent P is true or false in a hypothetical. If you examine the hypothetical from what we already known in the actual, then you should be able to draw your conclusion. Pick your choice.

1. P--->Q
2. P---> ~(Q)
3. ~(P)--->Q
4. ~(P--->Q)

4. Fourth row you have F, F, and T.
If P that which leads is false, then Q will immediately follow as false. It's reasonable to assume the whole constituents is true because P imply Q.

It the actual antecedent, which can be true or false, does not actually include the "If" then please rewrite this where I can follow along. If the statement including the IF can be true or false, then please explain how.

A conditional doesn't have to be written in a "if, then" statements.

If = (for, since, because, etc.)
Then = (so, it, therefore, etc.)

Again, "If miracles were performed in Sodom" is neither true nor false. I'm sorry for being picky, but I'm not following what you are saying because of (at least) this.

I think you might have a problem distinguishing between "hypothetical" and "actual."

1. Hypothetical is contrary to what we already know about the actual world. It's imagined and not real.
2. Actual is what we already know is real and is existing. We observed though things that has occurred or is occurring.

 

[makesends]

You didn't understand my question, which was mainly one question. But, I think I have figured out the answer by your separating "if" in the antecedent" from consideration as to the antecedent's truth, and you have eliminated the "then" from the consequent's value. So, putting them into the statement now makes sense.

I suppose the truth table for conditionals can be tricky to interpret. The word ‘antecedent P’ means “that which leads," (regardless if it's true or false) and the word ‘consequent Q’ means “that which follows" (regardless if it's true or false). Both P and Q is the whole constituents. And the truth table gives us four possible cases for the value of P and Q.

Yes, I understand that. I was saying that, (for example), the incomplete statement, "If the miracles were done in Sodom" can be neither true nor false until you remove the word, "IF" from it. You are using inexact language.

The Logical Conditional rules states: “A conditional P --->Q is false, if and only if, antecedent P is true and consequent Q is false, otherwise it’s all true.”

I can see that is indeed logical, now that I know what you are referring to that can be considered false or true. I still don't like the way you put it, since you keep calling, for example, the whole phrase, "If the miracles had been done in Sodom", the antecedent which can be true or not. Again, the "If" in it keeps that whole antecedent impossible to value as true or false. It is not a complete statement, with the IF in it.

1. First row you have T, T, and T.
If P that which leads is true, then Q will immediately follow as true. It's reasonable to assume the whole constituents is true because P imply Q.

*Remember that the P is doing the leading or implying, so the second, third, and fourth rows must follow this line of reasoning too.

2. Second row you have T, F, and F.
If P that which leads is true, then Q didn't follow as true because it's false. It's reasonable to assume the whole constituents is false because P didn't imply Q.

3. Third row you have F, T, and T.
If P that which leads is false, then Q will immediately follow happens to be true. It's reasonable to assume the whole constituents is true because P imply Q.

4. Fourth row you have F, F, and T.
If P that which leads is false, then Q will immediately follow as false. It's reasonable to assume the whole constituents is true because P imply Q.

Yes, that all follows, but only because "IF" and "THEN" cannot be considered separately as true or false additions to their respective phrases.

The word "if" in this instance is hypothetical.

Sure, that's obvious, though the whole of it is rhetorical. That is, there is no hint that Sodom actually might have, nor even could have had those miracles done in it.

“If miracles were performed in Sodom, then Sodom would have remained to this day.”

Both constituents of P and Q I've viewed this from the actual position from what we already know that has occurred in actual world. The possibilities cases for 1-3 is not applied in the actual world. If you believe P and Q is applied to one of the possibilities, then you have to demonstrate that is the case.

What happen in the actual world?

1). Jesus did not perform miracles in Sodom.
2). Sodom was judged and destroyed.

Compared to

1). “If miracles were performed in Sodom." Is false in the actual world.
2). "then Sodom would have remained to this day.” Is false in the actual world.

Well, no, "If miracles were performed in Sodom" is neither true nor false. Remove the IF. Now we have a statement that is false in the actual world.

Same for "then Sodom would have remained". Remove the THEN.

After establishing that in the real world Sodom did not remain, consider the whole statement including the IF and the THEN, for the entire conditional's value.

It's reasonable to assume the whole constituents itself is true because P imply Q. The logical form of a conditional doesn't depend on something is actually true or actually false. No matter how absurd, like "If a banana tree is planted in the air, then it doesn't require soil." We know in the real actual world that is not the case. The logical form of a conditional itself isn't invalid. No matter how ridiculous a statement might be. The idea can be absurd and irrational but the logical form itself is true.



Then you have to negate antecedent P.

~P

Or, are you negating the whole constituents of P--->Q

~(P--->Q)



It doesn't matter if the antecedent P is true or false in a hypothetical. If you examine the hypothetical from what we already known in the actual, then you should be able to draw your conclusion. Pick your choice.

1. P--->Q
2. P---> ~(Q)
3. ~(P)--->Q
4. ~(P--->Q)

4. Fourth row you have F, F, and T.
If P that which leads is false, then Q will immediately follow as false. It's reasonable to assume the whole constituents is true because P imply Q.



A conditional doesn't have to be written in a "if, then" statements.

If = (for, since, because, etc.)
Then = (so, it, therefore, etc.)



I think you might have a problem distinguishing between "hypothetical" and "actual."

No, I think you didn't get my point. I hope you do now.

1. Hypothetical is contrary to what we already know about the actual world. It's imagined and not real.

Well, no. It can be so, but if it is a hypothetical concerning the future, it may not be contrary to the actual world. It is contrary to what we know only in that we don't know the future. I.e. we don't yet know the actual world in the future.

Then there is the hypothetical used in propositional logic establishing truth in the consequent. "If God is omnipotent, then we know he can make a donkey speak."

2. Actual is what we already know is real and is existing. We observed though things that has occurred or is occurring. jkjl

Now, let me add something to the mix. You say that logically, the conditional is true because both constituents are false. It is true, (you say), and the truth tables bear you out, that if P and Q are false, the entire statement is true. But here we find a problem.

The fact that the miracles were not done in Sodom and the fact that Sodom does not remain, while they can allow for the entire conditional to be true, they do not prove it true. What proves it true is that Christ said it.

To use a different example, If I had tied my shoes this morning I would not have stumbled. I neither tied my shoes, nor did I fail to stumble. But we have nothing to tell us that my failure to tie my shoes was the cause of my stumbling.

But Jesus' statement is without the negative (the 'not' gate, in digital logic) in the consequent, so: "If I had tied my shoes, I would have looked good." I did not tie my shoes, and I did not look good. But I still don't know if the conditional is true or not. It may be true. It may not. So with Jesus' statement --It is only because Jesus' said it, that we know it to be true. If it had not been for him, there is no reason to believe the conditional true, even though both constituents are false. It only may be true.

 

[Binyawmene]

You didn't understand my question, which was mainly one question. But, I think I have figured out the answer by your separating "if" in the antecedent" from consideration as to the antecedent's truth, and you have eliminated the "then" from the consequent's value. So, putting them into the statement now makes sense.

And hopefully you will be able to narrow your questions down and pin-point exactly what you are asking. A logical conditional is a compound sentence and distinguished by the "if, then." If you want to make a separation between antecedent and consequent and find the truth value of them separately, then you should use logical Identity and Logical Negation as your guide. But post 16 isn't based on separating P from Q, its the whole conditional of P--->Q.

Yes, I understand that. I was saying that, (for example), the incomplete statement, "If the miracles were done in Sodom" can be neither true nor false until you remove the word, "IF" from it. You are using inexact language.

This makes no sense to me. To assume that "If the miracles were done in Sodom" is NEITHER TRUE NOR FALSE, then you have no truth value. There is no gap or in-between. Did you mean to say "either true or false?" And why are you removing the word "if" from the conditional make in post 16? Trying to rewrite my argument I've made against Molinism isn't going to make your case true. My argument is the whole conditional and not a isolation of antecedent from what it's implying of the consequent.

I can see that is indeed logical, now that I know what you are referring to that can be considered false or true. I still don't like the way you put it, since you keep calling, for example, the whole phrase, "If the miracles had been done in Sodom", the antecedent which can be true or not. Again, the "If" in it keeps that whole antecedent impossible to value as true or false. It is not a complete statement, with the IF in it.

I quoted the actual rule to conditional: “A conditional P --->Q is false, if and only if, antecedent P is true and consequent Q is false, otherwise it’s all true.” I didn't write the rules in logic. Nor did I write the rules for grammar, but yet, we have rules for grammar too. Post 16 isn't based on antecedent alone and restricted all by itself. I am using both P and Q the whole conditional P--->Q. That's what the rule calls for, and anything beyond that is outside of my argument.

Yes, that all follows, but only because "IF" and "THEN" cannot be considered separately as true or false additions to their respective phrases.

Right. So, why are you separating the "If" from the "then?"

Sure, that's obvious, though the whole of it is rhetorical. That is, there is no hint that Sodom actually might have, nor even could have had those miracles done in it.

That's the point is to logically demonstrate the absurdities of Molinism. Their doctrine is 'like' a book of countless future possibilities. And God picks which possibility is the best option and then he actualizes them by his will and decrees. They believe that every time Jesus spoke in hypothetical it was one of those long forgotten future possibility like Sodom. That's one out of many reason post 16 refutes. What is really weird is how a hypothetical scenario jumps to a possible future. And somehow that so-called possible future was known by God before he made his decree.

Well, no, "If miracles were performed in Sodom" is neither true nor false. Remove the IF. Now we have a statement that is false in the actual world.

Same for "then Sodom would have remained". Remove the THEN.

After establishing that in the real world Sodom did not remain, consider the whole statement including the IF and the THEN, for the entire conditional's value.

This simply makes no sense logically.

1). Rewriting the argument in post 16 doesn't make Molinism true.
2). Neither true or false has no truth value.
3). The actual world doesn't removing the "if" from the logical form of conditional.
4). The actual world doesn't removing the "then" from the logical form of conditional.
5). Denying the Antecedent is a logical fallacy.
6). Affirming the Consequent is a logical fallacy.

All this restricting, isolating, and separating the antecedent from the consequent is based on a logical fallacy. Who is teaching you this stuff? Or, you just throwing it out there to see if I will catch it?

No, I think you didn't get my point. I hope you do now.

You are not making much sense to me bro. Fallacy is an error in a person's reasoning. A fallacy is a mode, in which, by neglecting the rules of logic, and people often fall into erroneous reasoning which is the deception.

Of course Jesus Christ did not lie about his statement because he was only speaking hypothetical about Sodom in contrast to the miracles, he did perform in unrepented towns. This is not suggesting a possible future for Sodom and judgement already happen. Rather, Sodom would have repented if he performed miracles in the same manner that he performed in those unrepented towns.

Again, a counterfactual uses "if" for example in Matthew 11:23 "For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom." Jesus is clearly speaking in hypothetical, and the conclusion indicates the hypothetical "it would have remained to this day." In the actual world Jesus didn't perform miracles in Sodom in the same manner he performed in Capernaum and in the actual world. Sodom was judged and destroyed. But in the hypothetical scenario "IF Jesus was performing miracles in Sodom, the people would have repented in contrast to unrepented Capernaum, and Sodom would have remained to this day. Of course, we know that didn't happen, it's hypothetical and not the actual. world.

Hypothetical is not "actual" but a "counterfactual." Would you like to take another try at post 16?