I’ve been circling around the concept of Molinism for quite some time, viewing it through a fairly long lens of necessity and a short lens of fascination. Really, for the most part, I’ve only dabbled on the fringes rather than doing a deep dive. However, I find myself continually drawn back by its growing traction within theological circles, largely propelled by it having the likes of a William Lane Craig on its resume. Many of you have reached out, eager to hear my take on Molinism. Well, the time has come to do my best and, at the very least, express the primary reason this Calvinist has not followed in the footsteps of its growing fan base.

(Note: Lots of philosophical jargon here. You can skip to the illustration if you seek to get the gist of my thoughts. But this is good stuff if I have done a job of explaining it. Try to hang with me.)

Molinism Defined

Molinism is a theological framework developed by the 16th-century Catholic Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina. It seeks to present a sort of via media (“middle way”) or tertius quid (“third way”) by reconciling divine sovereignty and human free will. It does so by introducing this concept called “middle knowledge.” This doctrine posits that God knows not only everything that will happen but also all that could happen under any given circumstance. Thus, God can foresee every potential decision in every potential universe of free creatures and can plan accordingly, ensuring that His divine will is perfectly executed without impinging on human freedom. Thus, God’s sovereignty is preserved along with true human libertarian freedom (the power of contrary choice).

In this case, “Choose this day whom you will serve” (Josh 24:15) and “He who works all things in conformity with the purpose of his will” (Eph 1:11) are preserved without the need to employ exegetical gymnastics.

Sound too good to be true? We will see . . .

Realism vs. Anti-Realism: Setting the Stage

Before diving deeper into Molinism, let’s take a step back to lay some foundational philosophical groundwork. This is where it gets tricky. Understanding the stakes and the specifics of what Molinism proposes requires a grasp of certain philosophical principles, particularly the concepts of realism and anti-realism. These ideas form the backbone of many philosophical and theological debates and are crucial for appreciating the nuances of Molinist thought. So, are you a realist or an anti-realist? If you don’t know what I’m talking about, hang on.

Let me offer a brief overview of both realism and anti-realism, setting the stage for how they influence our understanding of divine sovereignty, human freedom,  Molinism, and the like.

Realism posits that certain categories of things—be they physical objects, mathematical entities, or moral truths—exist independently of human thought and perception. A realist might argue that mathematical truths, for example, represent realities about an abstract, non-physical realm that exists outside of and apart from our interactions and conceptions. To the question of “Do numbers actually exist?” for example, the realist would say “Yes!”

Anti-realism, on the other hand, challenges this independence, suggesting that the existence or truth of certain categories depends significantly on human perception, beliefs, or language. For anti-realists, the truths of mathematics are not about tapping into an external realm that has any sort of ontology (“substance” or “stuff”) but is constructed by humans and exists only within the context of human understanding and linguistic frameworks. So, does the number 2 actually exist? For the anti-realist, the answer is a resounding, “No!” A number finds its existence only in our perception, not in any objective grounding.

“Grounding” is a key issue. Keep that in your back pocket. We will get back to it.

Does a Falling Tree Make an Objective Noise?

Here’s a classic illustration that you’ve all heard and is directly relevant: If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? From the perspective of realism, the answer is yes; the tree does make a sound because sound is a physical phenomenon independent of human perception. The sound vibrations caused by the falling tree occur regardless of anyone being present to hear them—this emphasizes the realist view that reality exists independently of our senses.

Conversely, an anti-realist would argue that sound is a perceptual experience that requires a sentient being to hear it; therefore, without an observer, there is no “sound” as we understand it. This view suggests that our perceptions and interpretations play a crucial role in defining what is “real.” This debate not only highlights the differences between realism and anti-realism but also mirrors broader philosophical discussions about the nature of reality and truth as we explore them in the context of theology and divine knowledge.

Molinism, Realism, and the Grounding Objection

Molinism and Realism: Molinism posits that God has middle knowledge, which includes knowledge of all counterfactuals of creaturely freedom (CCF)—essentially, knowledge of what every free creature would do in any possible situation. This presupposes that there is a real, though not necessarily actualized, truth about every possible decision that creatures could make. This aspect of Molinism aligns with a form of realism because it asserts the real existence of possibilities that God knows but does not causally determine. He just knows of these options.

William Lane Craig’s Position: Craig is a realist. This is important to point out. He holds that while God knows all possible worlds and can actualize any of them, He does not deterministically cause all decisions within those worlds. Instead, free creatures within those worlds make free choices. In this sense, Craig seeks to maintain a balance where God is sovereign and He unconditionally predestines every believer. Still, he does not deter human libertarian freedom (the power of contrary choice) within that world.

The Grounding Objection

Now we get to the heart of the problem. According to the grounding objection, for Molinism to be coherent, the truths about what creatures would freely do must have a basis in reality—they must be grounded. If these truths are merely conceptual (not real until actualized) and depend entirely on human decision-making, then how can they exist—I mean truly exist—as known truths, before they are actualized? Where do they exist? From whence do they come? This is a significant challenge for Molinism because it raises questions about whether there are aspects of reality (potential decisions in potential worlds) that exist independently of God’s creative will. Do you get where this is going? If these possible worlds are filled with possible decisions of man, then they are not determined by God. Therefore, some things truly exist (namely, the counterfactuals) that are not grounded in anything. They exist in their own right. God is not their author.

The Illustration of the Author and the Library

I know, I know . . .  It’s overwhelming. Philosophy can cause one to pull their hair out! Let me try another way. Let’s consider a metaphor involving an author and a library and relate it to the distinctions between Calvinism, Arminianism, and Molinism in terms of divine sovereignty and human free will.

Calvinist Perspective: In this view, imagine God as the sole author who writes a book from beginning to end. There’s only one book in this library. God has written the entire story, including every chapter, every page, every word, and every letter. This book represents the course of history and every event within it, all predetermined by God in a way that somehow also preserves human responsibility and freedom (Calvinistic Compatibilism). It’s a divine mystery how these elements coexist, but they do—all meticulously authored by God.

Arminian Perspective: Here, God starts the book and writes crucial chapters, particularly the ending. He outlines the grand narrative and ensures that the story concludes according to His divine plan. However, the middle chapters are left blank, free for us to write. In this scenario, humans have the freedom to shape their own destinies within the confines of God’s ultimate framework. The library has multiple potential endings, but God ensures that the final outcome aligns with His will.

Molinist Perspective: Now, imagine a library containing an infinite number of books, each representing a different “possible world” that God could actualize. These books are all written by human free will under different circumstances. Before creating the world, God reads through these books and selects the one that aligns with His perfect will, where the culmination of all freely made decisions leads to the fulfillment of His divine purposes. In this view, God does not write the stories but knows them completely and chooses which story becomes reality. The choices are genuinely ours, but God selects the one universe in which those choices fit into His ultimate plan.

The Origin of Possibilities: A Molinist Dilemma

This leads us to a significant philosophical and theological inquiry: If these infinite books—representing all possible outcomes and freely made decisions—are known by God but not directly authored by Him, where did they originate? How can there be such detailed potential realities, each contingent on human free decisions, existing in any form before being actualized by God? Where are they grounded? This conundrum is at the heart of the debate over Molinism’s implications for divine sovereignty and human freedom. It raises questions about the nature and origin of these “possible worlds” and challenges the idea that anything exists outside of God’s creative will.


This has already far exceeded the word count I wanted to use. But it represents the primary issue I have with Molinism. It is not the only reason I am not a Molinist, but it presents a significant hurdle that Molinists need to better address. Maybe they have and I have missed it, but every answer I get follows the same pattern. Eventually, it would seem, that the Molinist needs to give up his idea of God’s sovereignty and admit that not all things happen according to God’s will, or just admit that they don’t believe that the tree falling in the forest makes a noise when no one is around. But then they have many other problems.

So, in conclusion, the question is: Where did the books in William Lane Craig’s Infinite Library come from? (Some of you may appreciate the irony of this illustration, but, don’t fret, its cleverness is probably not that clever and you don’t need to appreciate it in order to get what I am saying.)

This exploration has not only deepened my understanding but also solidified my reservations about embracing Molinism. The challenges it poses to the concepts of divine sovereignty and the origin of possibilities remain significant hurdles. As we continue to engage with these deep theological issues, it is crucial to critically evaluate and consider the implications of our theological commitments. This dialogue is essential as we strive to understand the vast complexities of our faith. I pray that this has been of some help and can create some good, irenic discussion.

C Michael Patton
C Michael Patton

C. Michael Patton is the primary contributor to the Parchment and Pen/Credo Blog. He has been in ministry for nearly twenty years as a pastor, author, speaker, and blogger. Find him on Patreon Th.M. Dallas Theological Seminary (2001), president of Credo House Ministries and Credo Courses, author of Now that I'm a Christian (Crossway, 2014) Increase My Faith (Credo House, 2011), and The Theology Program (Reclaiming the Mind Ministries, 2001-2006), host of Theology Unplugged, and primary blogger here at Parchment and Pen. But, most importantly, husband to a beautiful wife and father to four awesome children. Michael is available for speaking engagements. Join his Patreon and support his ministry

    14 replies to "William Lane Craig’s Infinite Library: Why Molinism Doesn’t Work"

    • Eric Quek

      I completely concur with your article, but after integrating perspectives from other scientific disciplines, I have a different view about Molinism. This view actually provides convincing answers to many important questions. I am still refining my views before I reach out to your article in the very very near future.

      • C Michael Patton

        Thanks Eric. I am definitely having a rethink this myself. I just haven’t been able to get past this conundrum. but primarily, I suppose it’s historically been the philosophical convoluted nature of molinism that keeps me at bay.

    • C Michael Patton

      Realism and anti-realism in philosophy discuss the nature of reality and our understanding or representation of it. In the context of Molinism, realism and anti-realism can and does play a role, especially concerning counterfactuals of creaturely freedom (CCF).

      [Hang with me]

      Realism, in this context, would assert that counterfactuals of creaturely freedom have a DEFINITE truth value independently of whether they are known by any mind, including God’s. For the realist these counterfactuals are true or false based on the decisions that people (free creatures) would make in hypothetical situations, and these truths are objective and existent in the world. If they are existent only in the mind of God, then the Calvinist agenda is accomplished as they would represent only those options that are determined by God through His control. They would not be mere objects of information that God knows about, adopts, and uses.

      It is for this reason that their objective existence must be outside of the mind of God. This the Molinist’a problem: from whence do they come?

      Anti-realism, on the other hand, would argue that the truth of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom depends on their being known or recognized by some mind, possibly requiring God’s knowledge to give them truth value. From an anti-realist perspective, these counterfactuals might not have a truth value independently of God’s knowledge of them. Thus, there are no books until they are conceptualized by a mind agent.

      For Molinists, who assert that God knows what any free creature would freely do in any hypothetical situation (Molina’s concept of middle knowledge), the realism vs. anti-realism debate impacts how one understands God’s knowledge and its relation to free will. If one leans towards realism, God’s knowledge of counterfactuals reflects an independent reality about creaturely free decisions. If one leans towards anti-realism, God’s knowledge might be seen as constitutive of the truth of these counterfactuals, which could imply a different interaction between divine foreknowledge and creaturely freedom.

      Thus, the realism or anti-realism stance has great bearing on the Molinist debate.

      That is the best I have right now. Convoluted? Probably. But it is a convoluted scheme and, in my opinion, quite manipulative.

    • C Michael Patton

      That is why the book illustration came first yesterday, then I built the blog around it. Maybe I should have just left it at the book illustration alone and let Clint Roberts explain the rest.

    • Bruce Austin

      An enjoyable and thought provoking read. Thanks Michael

    • Mark Begemann

      Thanks! Here’s one potential explanation. God sees all possibilities and knows the associated outcomes. He knows what I will do and the extent to which it is my choice (influenced by nature, nurture, and some portion of some thing we call free will). So even in my part of this choice, I made it with the mind and body he gave me, influenced by the environment in which he placed me, the history he knew would exist prior, and the genetic predispositions he knew I’d have based on the parents he gave me. And I could go on and on about all the ways he is sovereign and guides me in whatever little role it is that I might play in “my” choice. Or maybe it’s way cooler and he’s way more sovereign and we are way more responsible for our (usually bad) choices than we can ever imagine.

      • C Michael Patton

        I like the last maybe! He is definitely say cooler as he is the very embodiment of cool.

    • Eric

      Marriage between Molinism with Quantum Science producing a Product that provide a Robust Understanding of Divine Foreknowledge & Freedom. (Nice catchy title!)

      Molinism posits that God possesses knowledge of all events past, present, and future across all conceivable realities. This encompasses an understanding of the potential choices individuals might make in any given circumstance. Crucially, however, God does not coerce specific outcomes but rather orchestrates events in a manner that allows for free human agency, all the while comprehending the range of possible choices and their consequences. Essentially, Molinism suggests a meticulously detailed divine plan coexisting with human autonomy.
      Put it in another way: Michael uses the metaphor of a library filled with an infinite number of books, each book representing a “possible world” that God could bring into existence. These books are not authored by God but reflect all possible outcomes based on human free decisions. A crucial question arises: If these books are not directly created by God, from where do they originate? How can there be such detailed potential realities, each contingent on human free decisions, existing in any form before being actualized by God? Where are they grounded? This conundrum is at the heart of the debate over Molinism implications for divine sovereignty and human freedom. It raises questions about the nature of these “possible worlds” and challenges the idea that anything exists outside of God’s creative will.
      So far so good Michael?
      Enter Michael Patton again with more questions & objections:
      1. Discussion on Realism and Anti-Realism: Patton delves into the philosophical implications of realism and anti-realism, particularly regarding the existence of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom (CCFs). If CCFs are as real as Molinists assert, Patton insists on a clearer elucidation of how these fits into a coherent ontology (study of being and existence) consistent with broader theological concepts of God’s omniscience and omnipotence.

      I will attempt to provide a robust answer to his questions but first I need to clarify a question about the grounding of CCFs—where these truths exist before they are actualized.
      Do I understand this correctly: You outline your grounding objection, which challenges the coherence of Molinism by questioning the basis in reality for the truths about what creatures would freely do. However, your argument appears to suggest that if these truths are not grounded in anything real, then they lack a basis for existence thus undermining Molinism.
      If I am correct above, it seems this is a circular reasoning because you presuppose certain metaphysical assumptions that are then used to undermine Molinism.

      Introduction of Quantum mechanics into Molinism.
      Given the fact that most are not familiar with this weird “Quantum” whatever …….so the first question is this quantum thing real? Or just theory? If real, what are they use for?
      1) Quantum physics
      2) Quantum cosmology
      3) Lucretian swerve
      (1 & 2) use quantum mechanics as a fundamental framework to describe behaviors that cannot be explained by classical physics alone.
      Practical use from these: (MRI) Magnetic Resonance Imaging. These use principles that are rooted in quantum physics. This technology relies on the alignment of the spin of nuclei in a magnetic field & their quantum properties to produce detailed images of organs and tissues. (The founder of MRI a born-again Christian: Raymond Damadian) Fascinating story. Link if you want to delve further. https://www.icr.org/article/raymond-damadian-inventor-mri

      Key Concepts:
      1. Participatory Anthropic Principle: Reality is a participatory process, dependent on observation. Reality doesn’t simply exist independently in the universe but requires an observer to “bring it into existence” by the act of measurement.
      2. Theistic Quantum Idealism: his viewpoint integrates the idea that consciousness (including potentially divine consciousness) influences or constitutes the fabric of reality, drawing on elements of quantum mechanics.
      3. Quantum Indeterminacy: A fundamental concept in quantum mechanics that posits the inability to predict the properties of a system with absolute certainty. Instead, there are probabilities of different outcomes.
      4. Lucretian Swerve: Random, uncaused motions of atoms that Epicurus believed were necessary to support free will by breaking deterministic chains.
      5. Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: A key quantum mechanical principle stating that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot simultaneously be known to arbitrary precision.
      6. Observer Effect: In quantum mechanics, this refers to changes that the act of observation makes to a system being observed. This is often conflated with the measurement problem, where the state of a quantum system seems to alter on observation.
      7. Quantum Informational Construct: Suggests that information itself may be fundamental to the structure of reality, aligning with the idea that physical states depend on information states, which could be modified by observation.

      How does Molinism and Quantum intersect?
      This intersection is achieved through the concept of middle knowledge, which suggests that God knows not only everything that has or will happen, but also what could happen under any hypothetical scenario. In recent times, developments in quantum mechanics have introduced novel concepts like quantum indeterminacy and the observer effect, which have profound implications for understanding reality and free will. We will explore how these quantum mechanical concepts can potentially defend and enrich the understanding of Molinism, offering a modern perspective on divine foreknowledge and human freedom.
      Quantum mechanics, a cornerstone of modern physics, reveals a fundamentally indeterminate universe at the microscopic level. Central to this theory are principles such as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which posits that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot simultaneously be known with precision. This principle introduces a level of fundamental randomness or indeterminacy in the state of quantum particles. The observer effect in quantum mechanics, where the act of measurement affects the system being observed, suggests that reality at the quantum level is not fixed until it is observed. This could imply that on a fundamental level, reality is a dynamic interplay of possibilities until an outcome is realized by observation.
      Molinism and Quantum Indeterminacy: One of the central challenges Molinism addresses is how God can have complete foreknowledge of the future while humans retain free will. Quantum indeterminacy provides a philosophical and scientific framework to support this. If the universe itself is not entirely deterministic but open to various possibilities, this aligns with the Molinists view that humans can genuinely influence future outcomes through their choices, which are free yet foreknown by God. The Lucretian swerve, an ancient concept revived in this context, supports this by suggesting that random events at the atomic level could break causal chains, thus underpinning free will.
      Participatory Anthropic Principle and God’s Middle Knowledge: The participatory anthropic principle, posits that reality is a participatory process and requires observation to come into definite existence. This could be seen as analogous to God’s middle knowledge in Molinism, where God’s observation of all possible worlds provides the foundation for His foreknowledge. In this way, God could be envisioned not merely as a passive observer but as an active participant whose knowledge of every potential observation shapes the universe.
      Theistic Quantum Idealism and Molinism: Theistic Quantum Idealism extends these ideas by proposing that consciousness, including divine consciousness, is fundamental to the fabric of reality. This perspective could enhance the Molinist framework by suggesting that God’s knowledge and observation are what actualize reality’s potential states. This aligns with Molinism by illustrating how divine foreknowledge and human free will can coexist: God knows every possible outcome and actualizes the universe in which free choices are made, but without coercively determining those choices.
      Quantum Informational Construct and Divine Omniscience: The quantum informational construct posits that information is the fundamental building block of reality. In a Molinist context, this suggests that God’s omniscience could be understood as an all-encompassing knowledge of quantum information states throughout all possible worlds. This offers a way to conceive of God’s middle knowledge not just as a theoretical construct but as embedded within the very information that constitutes reality.
      When view from this novel perspective on an age-old recalcitrant issue on theological and philosophical dilemmas brings a breath of fresh air. The indeterminacy, participatory nature of reality, and informational framework provided by quantum mechanics provide a scientifically-grounded metaphor for understanding Molinism’s claims about divine foreknowledge and human free will. This synthesis, though speculative, enriches both our scientific and theological understanding, suggesting that even as our scientific knowledge expands, it can continue to dialogue creatively and constructively with our deepest metaphysical beliefs.
      (Working progress)

    • Eric Quek

      Part 2
      In this follow-up, my goal is to refine my defense on Molinism, particularly addressing his earlier objections more effectively than my initial attempt.
      For those new to the topic and eager to explore the intriguing intersection of quantum physics with philosophical theology, I recommend starting with “Quantum Physics for Poets” by Leon M. Lederman and Christopher Hill. This book demystifies quantum concepts in layman’s terms—ideal for beginners. Another enriching read is John Gribbin’s “In Search of Schrödinger’s Cat,” which delves deeper into quantum physics and its profound implications, though it requires more thoughtful digestion.
      Consider a hypothetical discussion between Michael and I on how quantum physics not only parallels but also strengthens Molinism. Mid-conversation, Michael playfully calls me a “bird brain.” Far from taking offense, I embrace the epithet, linking the unexpected complexity of avian navigation to the sophisticated dance of quantum mechanics and Molinist thought. This analogy serves to tackle Michael’s critical view on Molinism, focusing on how it reconciles divine sovereignty with human freedom and the reality of potential futures.
      Intriguingly, research highlighted by Scientific American shows that migratory birds utilize quantum effects, like entanglement in cryptochrome proteins within their eyes, to navigate via the Earth’s magnetic field. This quantum-based navigation is a fascinating parallel to quantum physics’ assertion that particles exist in multiple states simultaneously, only settling upon observation. Molinism mirrors this concept with the idea of middle knowledge, where God knows all potential free choices (CCFs) that beings could make—these truths, like quantum states, exist without needing to be actualized.
      Quantum physics has revealed that particles can exist in multiple states simultaneously, only settling into a particular state upon observation. This principle challenges our intuition but is a fundamental aspect of the physical world. Similarly, Molinism posits that God possesses middle knowledge, which includes truths about every possible free choice (CCFs) that creatures might make. These truths, like quantum states, do not need to be grounded in physical decisions to exist; they are known to God without requiring prior realization.
      Michael’s grounding objection questions how truths about free decisions can exist before those decisions are made. My response: Just as particles do not choose a position before observation, CCFs need not be grounded in actual decisions to be part of God’s knowledge. They exist within God’s omniscience as potential outcomes, reflecting the probabilistic nature of quantum states before they collapse into observed realities.
      Among several objections Michael has is whether Molinism framework diminishes God’s sovereignty if God selects rather than directly causes every aspect of the world. Answer: In quantum world, not everything is determined. There is an inherent randomness, and this randomness operates within a framework of cosmic laws and probabilities. This mirrors the Molinist view where God’s sovereignty involves creating a world where human free choices are genuinely possible. God’s selection of a possible world from among many does not diminish His sovereignty—rather, it exemplifies a sovereign choice to create a reality where free will is meaningful. This decision is akin to setting initial conditions in a quantum system; the outcomes are probabilistically determined but not fixed, allowing for genuine freedom within divine constraints.
      Another objection he raises concerns the realism of Molinism– how possibilities can exist before actualization. Answer: Quantum mechanics again provides a parallel: it considers all potential states as real before they manifest physically. In Molinism, possible worlds and choices exist as real potentials within God’s omniscience, similar to how quantum potentials are considered real within quantum fields.
      Thus I embrace the term “bird brain” as a metaphor for Molinism’s approach to divine knowledge and human freedom by bringing quantum physics that challenge us to think beyond conventional categories and appreciate the interaction between divine foreknowledge, human freedom, and the universe’s fundamental nature. This HYPOTHEICAL dialogue with Michael has shown that Molinism, supported by insights from quantum physics, provides a robust framework for addressing deep theological and philosophical questions, affirming that “ bird brain” can indeed be a compliment of the highest order.


      • C Michael Patton

        Good stuff bird brain. But, I don’t think I explained it very well. Calvinistd such as myself accept that God has knowledge. I don’t know how anybody would reject us considering there is club clear biblical support. The problem comes when you asked the question where or how do these things exist. If they exist in the mind of God, then Malone ism is no longer correct, as it denies the ability for there to be true independent freedom from God‘s will. therefore, these must exist outside of the wheel of God. Therefore, these counterfactual have no source for their genesis. Even if they have always existed, always existed where? In a simple framework? But by definition, only God could be simple

        I’m gonna check out that book. Thanks for the suggestion.

      • C Michael Patton

        Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem that quantum physics for poets is available yet. Did you get an advance copy?

      • C Michael Patton

        another way to say it in the same vein would be to say if they exist in the mind of God outside of his will, again, how can something exist outside of his will, even in his mind? Their origin would still be a mystery.

    • Alan Cossey

      Thanks for the article. I’m a (tentative) Molinist as it seems to have fewer problems than Calvinism rather than no problems at all. I note that in your description of Calvinism you speak of it having a “divine mystery”. None of the views (Calvinism, Arminianism or Molinism) seems to explain everything. So it seems we need to plump for the one with the fewest or smallest mysteries?

      By the way, my favourite Christian preacher/teacher was Tim Keller, a Calvinist. I heard him say once that he was “desperate” to reach people with the gospel. That’s good enough for me and I wish more Arminians/Molinists were like that.

    • JH

      It seems to me that you’re struggling with the idea of truth-makers and truthbearers. Truth-makers are those things that make something true and truthbearers are those things that are made true by truth-makers. That would apply to “possible worlds” and also to all propositions etc. etc. etc.

      If you believe that everything requires a truth-maker, then that’s Maximalism. Simply put, Maximalism is the idea that nothing can exist (and made true) without a truth-maker.

      This view comes with many problems, for example:

      Problem 1: Maximalism has to contend with it’s own version of the “liar paradox”. If it has a truth-maker, then it is false and it cannot have a truth-maker. If it has no truth-maker, then it is true, but nothing makes it true.

      Problem 2: David Lewis says, the same applies to the statement “nothing exists”. If it’s true, then there would have to be something to make it true (ie a truth-maker) but then something would exist and makes the statement false.

      To avoid the problem, you can become a Optimalist, but then, you have the same “Liar Paradox”. It just doesn’t work.

      I can give more examples but the bottom line is that NOT all truths require a truth-maker therefore what you are struggling with (when it comes to Molinism) does not apply.

      However, if you insist that all truthbearers must have a truth-maker, well, then you’re facing a very high price. You will have to contend with God being the author of evil and also the source of all contradictions etc. (since these things require a truth-maker). The irony with this approach is that contradictions contradict God’s own nature (that’s how we know they are false), therefore you end-up in an infinite loop trying to determine who is the author of contradictions. In other words, if contradictions are true, then God contradicted himself, but by denying it, contradictions don’t exist (when we know they do) hence the loop.

      Anyway, philosophically speaking, you’re much better off with Molinism because it doesn’t have any of these problems. However, Calvinism, on the other hand, ends-up ultimately denying the very nature of the Bibilcal God (because it insists that all truth-bearers requires a truth-maker) thus pinning all evil attributes on Him (along with contradictions and lies etc.etc.etc.).

      I hope it all makes sense.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.