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 Alvin Plantinga's Free Will Defense requires only the logical possibility of libertarian freedom, not a fully developed metaphysical account.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Libertarian freedom's logical possibility remains disputed; merely asserting it possible doesn't resolve the core debate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without metaphysical detail, the defense fails to show libertarian freedom actually coheres with divine foreknowledge.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Critics can consistently grant logical possibility while rejecting the defense as philosophically incomplete and unsatisfying.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Plantinga's core goal is defending theism against logical inconsistency, not providing complete metaphysics of freedom.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Logical possibility suffices to show no contradiction between omniscience, omnipotence, and human freedom exists.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Demanding fully developed metaphysics sets an unreasonably high bar not required for successful defense arguments.
      ?

      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.