Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    A successful Ockhamist response to theological fatalism n... — Carmelics
    Home/Free Will & Foreknowledge
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A successful Ockhamist response to theological fatalism need not await the definitive formulation of necessary and sufficient conditions for soft facthood.

    Free Will & Foreknowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • Paradigm examples of soft facts—facts that are surely soft, if any facts are soft—are enough for the job.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Without necessary and sufficient conditions for soft facthood, any proposed paradigm case can be contested as question-begging against the hard determinist.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Nelson Pike's original fatalist argument derives its force precisely from the claim that all past-tensed facts about God's beliefs are hard facts, making 'paradigm softness' a disputed assumption, not a neutral starting point.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Plantinga's Ockhamist strategy requires distinguishing soft from hard facts in non-arbitrary ways, since without such criteria the distinction collapses into an ad hoc maneuver to protect libertarian intuitions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.John Martin Fischer has shown that intuitions about paradigm soft facts systematically diverge among competent philosophers, meaning no case is sufficiently uncontroversial to bear the dialectical weight Ockhamism requires.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Free Will & Foreknowledge

    Related

    John Martin Fischer has shown that intuitions about paradigm soft facts systemat...Nelson Pike's original fatalist argument derives its force precisely from the cl...Paradigm examples of soft facts—facts that are surely soft, if any facts are sof...Plantinga's Ockhamist strategy requires distinguishing soft from hard facts in n...
    +1 moreShow less
    Without necessary and sufficient conditions for soft facthood, any proposed para...

    Similar

    The denial of future contingent truth is not sufficient to avoid the p...87%The soundness of the argument for theological fatalism must not be obv...86%The argument for theological fatalism is valid (if the premises are al...84%Middle Knowledge does not entail the falsehood of any premise of the b...84%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: free-will-foreknowledge
    View source passageHide passage
    Adams’s argument was unsuccessful since, among other things, her criterion for being a hard fact had the consequence that no fact is a hard fact (Fischer 1989, introduction), but it led to a series of attempts to bolster it by giving more refined definitions of a “hard fact” and the type of necessity such facts are said to have—what Ockham called “accidental necessity” (necessity per accidens). The resulting formulations became so refined and elaborate, in an effort to avoid possible counterexamples, that they risked becoming detached from the simple intuition they were intended to capture. Re...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit