(July 8, 2014 at 10:12 am)Cato Wrote: SteveII,
Molinism is certainly imaginatively creative, but is just wild speculation. How can any of this possibly be known?
The Euthyphro dilemma, which I don't think has been satisfactorily addressed in 2400 years, cuts Molinism down at its roots. de Molina's machinations are nothing more than an attempt to make morals as the whim of God intellectually palatable to those rightly concluding that many of God's supposed deeds and dicta are immoral by any reasonable standard.
A dilemma must only have two possible outcomes. Philosopher William Lang Craig did some work on this and argues that a third option exists: "what the alternative is is “God is good because his nature is The Good.” His nature defines or determines what is The Good. So that doesn’t lead to this then further dilemma which he wants to erect that “Is God’s nature good because it creates The Good or because it recognizes The Good?” That question in a sense doesn’t even make sense. Natures don’t create anything or recognize anything. When you are talking about the nature of God you are talking about his essential properties. And the nature of God neither creates nor recognizes things at all so the whole question is just malformed.
Rather what we want to say is that God’s nature is The Good and that this simply determines what goodness is. Therefore, to say “why is God’s nature good?” or “does it create the good or recognize the good?” is to fail to understand the alternative. It is sort of like asking, “Is The Good, good because it creates The Good or because it recognizes The Good?” Well, neither one – The Good is good because it is The Good. It defines what is The Good. It is the standard. It simply makes no sense to ask this further question."
