Paradoxes Now with the possibility of backwards causation there arises some paradoxes within the view. Namely, there are three different types of paradoxes to talk about, the Bootstrap Paradox, the Consistency Paradox, and Newcomb’s Paradox. The one that we will focus on, and I believe holds that most weight against backwards causation is Newcomb’s Paradox. The paradox in short is that a person is given a choice between two boxes, by a fortune teller who can fully predict the choice of the person. The boxes contain one thousand dollars in a clear box, box A, and an opaque box, box B, that either contains one million dollars or no money at all. The fortune teller gives the person an option, take only box B and get one million dollars, or take …show more content…
If the result of the person’s action can be predicted, because it is already true today what the person will choose tomorrow, they cannot be free to pick. If the fortune teller already knows that the person will choose both boxes, this has to be true, and the person cannot do otherwise. And if the fortune teller already knows that the person will select only box B, this has to be true, and the person cannot but do it. Now suppose it is now already true or false what is going to happen tomorrow; then there must be some future truth-makers that determine that it is now already true or false what is going to happen. The consequence seems to be that what the person is going to do tomorrow is already determined today. So then the person can’t do otherwise tomorrow than what is true today. Therefore, the person can’t have a free choice. If this is true then events in the past are fixed and not even backwards causation can move events from the past. The Newcomb Paradox is somewhat akin to Aristotle's sea battle paradox. Even though I have mentioned some paradoxes, some people believe that backwards causation has absolutely no …show more content…
We could either reject backwards causation, or reject God’s divine foreknowledge, we could reconcile both together, or we could reject both. The last option has completely different reasons to reject God’s foreknowledge, so if it is not backwards causation causing this then, we won’t consider it an option. This leaves us with three options, the first rejection backwards causation. If you reject backwards causation then you but adhere to the fact that Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is wrong and much of physics about the universe for the past half-century have been false, undoing some huge strides in technology. We have already seen what happens when you reject God’s foreknowledge. This problem then, has just as big of ramifications as the ramifications of denying Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. This in my mind leaves us with one option, this to me is the option to reconcile both of them, and the best attempt at the is molinism. Thought molinism in itself may give up complete foreknowledge it does keep God’s providence