Occam's razor

Patrick said:

***QUOTE***

It's cruel of you to dig up some of those links, PP. Posting Link 2 was especially heartless. Steve Hays must find it pretty humiliating to see you link to the discussion with me where he made believe that a certain claim made by Archbishop Chaput committed him to open theism. That was a real trainwreck.

***END-QUOTE***

I said:

***QUOTE***

Well, now, let’s see. If I was so disappointed with my performance in that exchange I could either delete it altogether or at least delete Patrick’s side of the exchange. But it’s all there for all to see.

And what they will see is that Patrick tried to save the good Archbishop from heresy by imputing to him one or another—or was it both at the same time?—position to him, viz. Thomism or Molinism. As a matter of fact, Occamism is a third alternative, but Patrick is apparently unacquainted with that. Oh, and while we’re on the subject, there’s more than one version of Molinism as well.

***END-QUOTE***

Patrick said:

***QUOTE***

Steve,

Actually, Occamism isn't a third option with respect to the issue of Predestination. It's really just a position on reconciling foreknowledge and freedom, but I guess you don't realize that foreknowledge and Predestination are distinct, though obviously related, issues. Kind of makes your snide superiority seem pretty silly, doesn't it?

***END-QUOTE***

I said:

***QUOTE***

Wherever did I get the silly idea that the Occamist option might have anything to do with predestination? Hmm. Well, just for starters, the title of his treatise might contain a wee bit of a clue:

Tractatus de praedestinatione et de praescientia Dei et de futuris contingentibus (Franciscan institute publications [Philosophy series], 1945).

Hint? Hint?

You really wonder why Patrick keeps coming back to get slapped down again. Is he doing penance for venial sin or something?

***END-QUOTE***

Patrick said:

***QUOTE***

But let me ask you--did you ever _open_ the book by Occam? No, I didn't think so.

***END-QUOTE***

Some guys just don’t know how to quit when they’re behind. Here’s the table of contents:

***QUOTE***

Question I: Are passive predestination and passive foreknowledge real relations in the person who is predestinate and foreknown?

Question II: In respect of all future contingents does God have determinate, certain, infallible, immutable, necessary cognition of one part of a contradiction?

Question III: How can the contingency of the will, both created and uncreated, be preserved in the case of its causing something external? That is, can the will, as naturally prior to the caused act, cause the opposite act at the same instant at which it causes that ct, or can it at another subsequent instant cause the opposite act or cease from the caused act?

Question IV: Is there a cause of predestination in the predestinate and a cause of reprobation in the reprobate?

Question V: In view of the fact that the propositions “Peter is predestinate” and “peter is reprobate” are opposites, why cannot the one succeed the other in truth?

William Ockham. Predestination, God’s Foreknowledge, & Future Contingents, M. Adams & N. Kretzmann, eds. (Hackett 1983).

***END-QUOTE***

As we can see, from the table of contents alone, predestination is an integral element of Occam’s analysis.

And I’m quoting from the table of contents because I also have the full text before my very eyes--since I own the book in question. I can just as easily lift direct quotes from the body of the text, if need be.

I realize that Patrick is a glutton for punishment, but now might be an opportune time to throw in the towel before he does himself, his cause and his side even further damage. Just an idea.