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 true proposition belongs to God's free knowledge if and only if it is a contingent truth within God's control

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Molinism posits middle knowledge of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, which are contingent yet outside God's direct causal control.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If contingent truths grounded in creature's free choices are not 'within God's control', they cannot belong to free knowledge, yet God knows them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, contingency alone is insufficient to distinguish free knowledge; the locus of control must also be specified, undermining the biconditional.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Boethius and Aquinas argue God's eternity places all temporal contingents under God's simultaneous vision, not under deliberate divine decision.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A contingent truth like 'Caesar crossed the Rubicon' was not within God's control to alter without violating creaturely libertarian freedom.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.God's knowledge of such truths is neither purely natural nor freely chosen in the relevant sense, falsifying the proposed biconditional.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.God's free knowledge is subject to God's free decision
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A contingent truth is an actual truth that could have been false under different circumstances
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.God could have brought it about that contingent truths were false instead
      ?

      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.