Edwards’ arguments based on divine foreknowledge

In part 2 section 12, Edwards attempts three demonstrations of the incompatibility of LFW and God’s foreknowledge: 1) based on the connection between foreknowledge and the event, 2) based on the impossibility of knowing things without evidence and 3) based on knowing a contingent event with certainty. The Connection between Foreknowledge and the Event Edwards' Argument: P1: Things in the past are now necessary P2: In the past, God infallibly foreknew our future choices C1: therefore, God's foreknowledge of our future choices is now necessary P3: if something necessary is infallibly connected with something else, that something else is also necessary P4: God's necessary foreknowledge is infallibly connected with our future choices C2: therefore, our future choices are necessary My Response P3 is equivical. "Connection" could mean either a logical connection or a causal one. Additionally, "is" can mean either a logical or a temporal moment. If connection is understood as a causal connection, we grant P3, but C2 doesn't follow, because foreknowledge is connected logically (not causally) with events. Edwards admits foreknowledge doesn't cause events. Nor do events cause foreknowledge. God's knowledge of events is immediate; there isn't a moment in time that an event happens and God doesn't know about it. This implies that God's knowledge isn't caused, becauces effects temporally follow causes. God's knowldge is unique in this regard. If "connection" is understood as a logical connection, we must distinguish logicial necessity into simple and compound. Something is simply logically necessary if the opposite contradicts itself. (i.e. square circles) Something is compoundly logically necessary if the opposite contradicts another truth. (i.e. X = 1 contradicts X =2) Undersood as simple logical necessity, we deny P3. The event isn't necessary such that propositions about the event not happening contradict themself. Rather they contradict statements about God's foreknowledge. If the connection is understood as logical and the necessity is understood as compound necessisty, we must distinguish between logical and temporal moments. If "is" relates to a logical sequence, we grant P3. But the logical sequence is: the event -> true propositions about the event -> foreknowledge. That is to say, the event is the logical basis of truth of propositions about the event, which is the logical basis of foreknowledge. Understanding this, the conclusion is inverted. C2 should be: given the logical connection between the event and foreknowledge, at the logical moment of the event and the connection between the event and foreknowledge, foreknowledge is necessary. One can conclude foreknowledge is necessary based on the event, but not the other way around. But if the sequence is understood temporally, we deny P3. Truths are omni-temporal. The proposition "on May 17th 2008 Dan is typing a post" is true at all points in time. Thus, temporally sequencing a logical connection is inappropriate. Impossibility of Knowing Things without Evidence Edwards argues that nothing can be know without evidence. Evidence consists of either 1) "self-evidence" or 2) "the necessity of it's nature". Edwards denies future contingents give self-evidence, because they have not "present existence". Regarding option 2, Edwards also points out that if something is necessary, it isn't contingent. My Response The future event is the evidence by which God foreknows the future event. Thus the event is "self-evident", using Edwards terms. What is required to be self-evident isn't present existence, but future existence. Otherwise God would know the event, not foreknow it. To require present existence as evidence collapse time. What God knows would no longer be the future, if it has present existence. Even thought we can say the future is the evidence supporting God's knowledge of the future, we do not know how God knows the future. Some say it's because God is outside of time, but I am not sure about that. But Calvinism doesn't explain how God knows the future either (if God knows the future in Calvinism). For more, see this post, and my exchange with Steve. Knowing Something Certainly which is Contingent Edwards argues that God's knowledge would be inconsistent with itself, if He knew something contingent with certainty. To Edwards, this is like saying: "he now knows a proposition to be of certain infallible truth, which he knows to be of contingent uncertain truth". My Response Edwards conflates "can" and "will". Saying an event can happen, isn't the same as saying it will happen. Can relates to possibility, will relates to future occurrence. God knows, out of the many things that can happen, what will happen. His knowledge is certain, which means His knowledge is correct, not that the event is necessary. Only by switching "can" and "will" does Edwards get to his conclusion God knows something both certainly and uncertainly; a move that that cannot be made without relying on the two flawed arguments above.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more