Critiquing "Counterfactual" of Molinism

[makesends]

ince 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.

I don't think @Josheb means that grammatically, Jesus is not presenting a hypothesis and making a hypothetical statement. I agree with him that it is not hypothetical, if hypothetical must mean that Jesus is claiming that it could have happened.

makesends said:
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?

Well, obviously, Jesus is not saying that the miracles he did in Capernaum were done in Sodom, but what I was talking about is that he wasn't saying that they could have (would have, should have, whatever) been done in Sodom. There is no such implication.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
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, the "if" identifies the antecedent and the "then" identifies the consequent. I get that. What I am saying is that the grammar, "IF the miracles [were] done" cannot be falsified, because no claim nor even a statement is being made. If you remove the hypothetical from it, then, the statement, "...miracles [were] done in Sodom" can be considered as to its veracity. Same for the consequent's "then".

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.

Agreed. It cannot be falsified. The half-sentence includes the word, "if", which renders it only a half-statement. There is nothing there to falsify. Once you have assigned a truth value to a statement, put the "if" back in for consideration of the truth value of the whole "conditional" statement. "If false, then also false" = true statement.

I don't know if this will make sense to you, or help you see what I'm getting at, but I had a hard time with the "modern math" of the 60's and 70's because while obviously "14 apples; take away 10; you have 4 left", to arrange it into sentence structure by symbols and devices complicated it for me. I had to figure out what in the world they were doing. The same problem came up with Algebra and Calculus. It was awful. Once I figured out what was going on, I had no problem.

Same with engineering school. Boolean Algebra, the Karnaugh map, the ladder diagrams, the gates --not, and, or, exclusive or, etc-- simple, once I figured out what they were doing. I'm not decrying the use of first order logic--it is eminently useful. I'm decrying the sloughing of terms. Let me give you this I ran into in EET: The use of the word "energy" --it took me forever to figure out that they used the term in very general fashion, in one specific meaning, in a completely different half-use, etc. They said voltage was "potential energy". What they meant was not that there was energy going on, as in, "work", but that there was the potential for work to happen. When they said, energy flowing, they were talking about current, and may as well have left the word, "energy", out of the statement. It may have sounded impressive, but it fogged up the works. THEY could somehow write out equations with the word "energy" in it, sometimes even in parenthesis as if it was an element of the equation to be multiplied, differentiated --whatever-- when they didn't mean that at all.

So with your saying, "'If miracles were done in Sodom' is false." No, it isn't false. It isn't even true. Now, I know, from our throwing it around a while, what you mean and why you put it that way. But I had to figure it out.

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.

You asked for criticism of the logic process / logical arrangement. Or so I thought you were asking. Not criticism of the logical argument--at least, not at first.

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.

Fine. I meant you no criticism, but the way the rule is written. I have no criticism of what it is trying to do.

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

I'm not. I'm separating the "if" from the statement, "...miracles were done...". "If miracles were done" is not falsifiable. "miracles were done" is.

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.

Ok.

And yes, I agree right off the bat. Even intuitively, it makes no sense. They have to invent words and form new abstracts, twist and shout.

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?

Pretty obviously you've got me wrong. I'm not arguing against the logic. I've only got a problem with how the terms are arranged.

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?

Which is why I told Josh that Jesus' statement was not that the miracles were, nor even could have, been done in Sodom. It was not the sort of hypothetical that the Molinists' use of counterfactuals assumes.

 

[Josheb]

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

What made you come to this conclusion?

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

Irrelevant.

Then I think I'm done here because I do not know how any Christian can ever say unscriptural and irrational views are irrelevant. In this particular case, the precluded causailty is an indication of metaphorical intent, not hypothetical intent. It is, therefore, not irrelevant.

Never suggested it and it's not the issue.

I acknowledge you never suggested it, but it is relevant.

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.

Yep. Molinism is incorrect in both method and conclusion.

Because "if" is the hypothetical.

The "if" is not the hypothetical. An "if" is normally and indication of a hypothetical, a dialectic, and if... then... else... logic equation BUT that is true only when the "if" is predicated on an actual logical occurrence, and since Jesus is not saying miracles cause salvation, miracles were done in Sodom, it is likely at least some were saved in Sodom, and the results of denying Jesus are the same for everyone. Therefore that "if" is not a hypothetical.

If the color of the car is red, then it is more likely to be noticed by the police and the driver pulled over.

versus

If the car is red, then it will need more repairs.

versus

If the car is red, then it will be able to fly to Jupiter.​

The first is a hypothetical; one that is based in reality and real probability that has been statistically established. The second is a possibility but one lacking any evidential support and is, therefore, not a hypothetical that has any basis in reality. The third is sheer nonsense. The word "if" is not always an indication of an actual hypothetical. An exegetical error was committed (presumably unwittingly) because the rest of the constituents of the passage were not considered in the light of whole scripture. It was believed a simple linguistic approach to "if" is sufficient when that is not the case.

 

[Binyawmene]

Yes, the "if" identifies the antecedent and the "then" identifies the consequent. I get that. What I am saying is that the grammar, "IF the miracles [were] done" cannot be falsified, because no claim nor even a statement is being made. If you remove the hypothetical from it, then, the statement, "...miracles [were] done in Sodom" can be considered as to its veracity. Same for the consequent's "then".

Exegeting the verse grammatically really doesn't make much of a difference.

Matthew 11:23 ....For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day.

a). the "were" is in reference to Capernaum.
b). the "had been" is in reference to Sodom.

The "were" is the correct starting point: "If miracles were performed in Sodom." Why? For the simple fact that the word "were" is carried over and continued into another. Because Jesus is talking about "the miracles that were" (or those recent past miraculous events in Capernaum) being carried over and superimposed into Sodom, which is the basis for the hypothetical and "if" is justified by the verb. For instance, Jesus lived in Capernaum and a fulfilled prophecy (Matthew 4:12-17), healing of Peter’s mother-in-law (Matthew 8:14-15), and healing of the blind and mute (Matthew 9:27-34). Of course, so many other miracles happen in Capernaum, but it's a brief idea leading up to Matthew 11:23. So, the idea is not just Jesus' miracles themselves that is carried over, but also, the one who is performing the miracles or Jesus himself is added into the equation. Since Jesus is performing the miracles, and those same type of miracles that "were" is carried over and to be asserted into Sodom.

Agreed. It cannot be falsified.

Semantic and hard to articulate. The "if" in conditionals doesn't always mean hypothetical but also can be actual. Remember that Jesus' statement is only hypothetical. It's like you are trying to overlap the hypothetical conclusion with the actual conclusion. Then you projected that on me as if I'm committing a fallacy. This is what I mean about you not distinguishing between "hypothetical" and "actual." My conclusion in post 16 is (F, F, T), which isn't based on hypothetical conclusion resulting in a fallacy, but rather, on the actual conclusion of what we already know about the real-world concerning Sodom. Did you understand that? I've underlined for you. And that is why you arrived at a logical fallacy of Denying the Antecedent. Then you think it's falsified because you think there is no truth value to be obtained in the hypothetical. For the most part I agree that there is no truth value can be obtained in the hypothetical. But we do know that truth value is obtained in the actual world.

Actual World:

a). Did the same-type miracles performed in Sodom? No.
b). Did Sodom repent and still existing to this day? No.

The half-sentence includes the word, "if", which renders it only a half-statement. There is nothing there to falsify. Once you have assigned a truth value to a statement, put the "if" back in for consideration of the truth value of the whole "conditional" statement. "If false, then also false" = true statement.

This was explained to you already.

Post 38: 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.​

You are thinking "Why P being false and Q being false, then the whole conditional isn't false but true?" That's your head scratcher? Because a logical conditional isn't a logical conjunction. The logic behind the logical form is false, but the logical form itself valid but true. For example, "If earth worms grow wings, then intelligent designer is the cause." That is hypothetical and doesn't make sense in the actual world. After all, it's false that earth worms could grow wings and false that it's caused by an intelligent designer. But, nevertheless, it's a TRUE valid conditional (F, F, T). Or again, “If miracles were performed in Sodom, then Sodom would have remained to this day.” That is hypothetical and doesn't make sense in the actual world. After all, it's false that miracles performed in Sodom and false that Sodom is still existing. But, nevertheless, it's a TRUE valid conditional (F, F, T).

So with your saying, "'If miracles were done in Sodom' is false." No, it isn't false. It isn't even true. Now, I know, from our throwing it around a while, what you mean and why you put it that way. But I had to figure it out.

I have no idea what you are trying to figure out. It could be that you simply lack knowledge in basic Propositional Logic and never actually studied it. Besides a few discussions here and there doesn't really qualify. And you want to express what you want to say, but you lack that clarification and articulation. Well, me too, and it takes years to practice it. So, I'm sure, eventually, I will be able to zero-in what you are trying to suggest.

 

[makesends]

Exegeting the verse grammatically really doesn't make much of a difference.

Matthew 11:23 ....For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day.

a). the "were" is in reference to Capernaum.
b). the "had been" is in reference to Sodom.

The "were" is the correct starting point: "If miracles were performed in Sodom." Why? For the simple fact that the word "were" is carried over and continued into another. Because Jesus is talking about "the miracles that were" (or those recent past miraculous events in Capernaum) being carried over and superimposed into Sodom, which is the basis for the hypothetical and "if" is justified by the verb. For instance, Jesus lived in Capernaum and a fulfilled prophecy (Matthew 4:12-17), healing of Peter’s mother-in-law (Matthew 8:14-15), and healing of the blind and mute (Matthew 9:27-34). Of course, so many other miracles happen in Capernaum, but it's a brief idea leading up to Matthew 11:23. So, the idea is not just Jesus' miracles themselves that is carried over, but also, the one who is performing the miracles or Jesus himself is added into the equation. Since Jesus is performing the miracles, and those same type of miracles that "were" is carried over and to be asserted into Sodom.



Semantic and hard to articulate. The "if" in conditionals doesn't always mean hypothetical but also can be actual. Remember that Jesus' statement is only hypothetical. It's like you are trying to overlap the hypothetical conclusion with the actual conclusion. Then you projected that on me as if I'm committing a fallacy. This is what I mean about you not distinguishing between "hypothetical" and "actual." My conclusion in post 16 is (F, F, T), which isn't based on hypothetical conclusion resulting in a fallacy, but rather, on the actual conclusion of what we already know about the real-world concerning Sodom. Did you understand that? I've underlined for you. And that is why you arrived at a logical fallacy of Denying the Antecedent. Then you think it's falsified because you think there is no truth value to be obtained in the hypothetical. For the most part I agree that there is no truth value can be obtained in the hypothetical. But we do know that truth value is obtained in the actual world.

Actual World:

a). Did the same-type miracles performed in Sodom? No.
b). Did Sodom repent and still existing to this day? No.



This was explained to you already.

Post 38: 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.​

You are thinking "Why P being false and Q being false, then the whole conditional isn't false but true?" That's your head scratcher? Because a logical conditional isn't a logical conjunction. The logic behind the logical form is false, but the logical form itself valid but true. For example, "If earth worms grow wings, then intelligent designer is the cause." That is hypothetical and doesn't make sense in the actual world. After all, it's false that earth worms could grow wings and false that it's caused by an intelligent designer. But, nevertheless, it's a TRUE valid conditional (F, F, T). Or again, “If miracles were performed in Sodom, then Sodom would have remained to this day.” That is hypothetical and doesn't make sense in the actual world. After all, it's false that miracles performed in Sodom and false that Sodom is still existing. But, nevertheless, it's a TRUE valid conditional (F, F, T).



I have no idea what you are trying to figure out. It could be that you simply lack knowledge in basic Propositional Logic and never actually studied it. Besides a few discussions here and there doesn't really qualify. And you want to express what you want to say, but you lack that clarification and articulation. Well, me too, and it takes years to practice it. So, I'm sure, eventually, I will be able to zero-in what you are trying to suggest.

I'm getting a bit frustrated. I've tried to explain that I see no logical fallacy. I agree completely with the truth tables and the conclusion. And I even see the value of the systematic handling of the pretexts. I actually LIKE the crutches we use to keep our thinking organized. My only problem is with some of the statements that I see as shortcuts.

The notion, 'IF', which takes over the whole P, cannot be rendered true or false. But since the notation of the diagramming is done with the whole construction (i.e. both phrases of the conditional, to include the IF and the THEN, are designated as false, even though they include the IF and the THEN) I only had to figure out that that is how the notation is done My complaint was that I had to figure out that it's just the way the notation is done. I can live with that, just as I can live with Voltage being called Energy, even though voltage does not of itself actually do anything.

 

[Binyawmene]

I'm getting a bit frustrated. I've tried to explain that I see no logical fallacy. I agree completely with the truth tables and the conclusion. And I even see the value of the systematic handling of the pretexts. I actually LIKE the crutches we use to keep our thinking organized. My only problem is with some of the statements that I see as shortcuts.

My conclusion in post 16 is quite simple.

Modus Tollens
P--->Q
~Q
~P
The truth table is F, F, T

I don't understand why all this restricting, isolating, and separating the P from Q. It makes me think you was using a fallacy.

Denying the Antecedent
P--->Q
~P
~Q
The truth table is F, F, T

The notion, 'IF', which takes over the whole P, cannot be rendered true or false.

Here we go again.
What is it about the antecedent P that you are having issues with?
Who said that P cannot be rendered as true or false?

But since the notation of the diagramming is done with the whole construction (i.e. both phrases of the conditional, to include the IF and the THEN, are designated as false, even though they include the IF and the THEN) I only had to figure out that that is how the notation is done My complaint was that I had to figure out that it's just the way the notation is done. I can live with that, just as I can live with Voltage being called Energy, even though voltage does not of itself actually do anything.

Why is it hard to figure out?

P--->Q True
~Q False
~P False
The truth table is F, F, T

 

[Mr GLee]

It's a good question to ask. But the OP topic example is about Jesus Christ in relation to counterfactuals. And how to applies to us and our salvation. If you want to give a logical critique of the OP, then I would gladly give a logical reply.

A promised three days and nights demonstration of the Lamb of God slain from the foundation. The six days the Father did work.

Jesus the Christ, teaching Holy Spirit as the father that worked in Jesus the Son of mankind the virgin bride. The first born of many sons of God (Christians)

The Son of Man, Jesus had no power of his own that could please the father

2 Corinthians 4:7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.

The word Christ used to represent the unseen eternal power. Its Spirit Life has nothing to do with dying flesh

Satan not subject to the gospel truth. His understanding limited to what the eyes see . His voice lying's signs to wonder, wonder, wonder after as if true prophecy (sola scriptura)

We have that power within to raise to newborn again life. It simply does not come from dying mankind.

He calls us "Little faith" (power) Not to fault but rather to promise. When the apostle's workload was increased 7 times 70 their cry to increase the faithful power .

Christ the store room of power (faith)

Luke 17:5And the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith.

Acts 6:7And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.

Acts 16:5 And so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily.

2 Corinthians 10:15 Not boasting of things without our measure, that is, of other men's labours; but having hope, when your faith (power) is increased, that we shall be enlarged by you according to our rule abundantly

Little faith Big God .