Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that A God whose knowledge is dependent on contingent human acts is not the metaphysically independent, eternally self-sufficient being of classical theism.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
God's knowledge being about contingent facts need not make God dependent; God can eternally know all possibilities without dependency.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Divine atemporality allows God to know contingent human acts as eternally present without those acts causally determining divine knowledge.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Dependence requires a causal or explanatory priority that mere knowledge-of doesn't establish; knowing a fact differs from depending on it.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Metaphysical independence requires that a being's existence and nature depend on nothing external to itself.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If God's knowledge of future human acts depends on those acts occurring, God's knowledge causally depends on contingent events.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
A being whose essential attributes depend on external contingencies lacks the absolute self-sufficiency classical theism attributes to God.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.