I've been strongly persuaded that determinism is the ideology that best fits the facts of life and theology. With God's attributes and with our understanding of how logic and the world works, I don't see how anyone can believe in the libertarian notion of the will. That being said, I find myself agreeing with Craig's representation of Molinism very much - until he throws in the term "libertarian will." It seems to me like his proposal is the exact same thing I'd propose. God created this particular world, knowing exactly what was going to happen, and humanity could have chosen otherwise, but never would have due to their upbringing, genes, etc in that particular world. So is Molinism just determinism that throws in a meaningless term "free will," or is my position of determinism really Molinism?
I would go into far greater detail, but I have far too much to say on the issue. I have created a site where I explain why I think it's unreasonable to hold onto libertarian free will, so I'll direct you there. Below, I will select a few of my biggest problems with the libertarian aspect of Molinism so you can help me to figure out where I stand.
Specific Problems With Molinism:
1. If an actualized world can be guaranteed to give you result X, how is this anything but determinism? If you'd replay the world infinitely, the same thing would happen every time.
2. If the problem with determinism is that people wouldn't have done otherwise due to their nature, what's the difference with Molinism?
3. Hell seems just as shallow on this view, as in another world, an unbeliever in this world may have chosen God - or at least heaped less judgement on himself. So the actions that do/do not occur are still a result of God's choice.
4. We believe that God created from his nature. He can't sin. What he created stems from who he is. However, with Molinism's attempt to preserve the libertarian will, they're doing so to preserve man as higher than God. It's saying that man doesn't have a nature that grounds him unto action.
5. Following from #4, it seems that clinging on to libertarian freedom goes against everything we know. We know that causes exist and we think that randomness exists (i.e. quantum particles and radioactive decay), but what else is there? If things aren't done because of something (i.e. a nature, inherent good or evil, etc), then things are done randomly. Random doesn't seem like a better alternative than reason and purpose.
I'd really appreciate your help in thinking through this issue. While I am currently on the side of determinism, this is because the facts I understand at the moment point clearly towards that. Please don't attack me with the common or emotional objections I often get. I've thought through this and addressed most of the typical arguments, and probably much more than most libertarians even know exist. That doesn't make them right, it just means I need some good thinkers on the other side who can show me why I'm wrong about their view. Thanks for a good discussion in advance.