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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

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

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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