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 Aquinas and Molina held that God knows future contingents through middle knowledge or eternal present, not through temporal foreknowledge.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Middle knowledge requires God to know what free creatures would do in infinite counterfactual situations, raising metaphysical puzzles about the grounding of such truths.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The claim that God knows an 'eternal present' is obscure—it's unclear how a tenseless present preserves real knowledge of genuinely contingent futures.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Simple foreknowledge of what will happen is more metaphysically parsimonious than positing middle knowledge as an additional divine mode of knowing.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
God's knowledge must be eternal and non-temporal to avoid divine dependence on created events.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Middle knowledge allows God to know counterfactuals about free creatures without determining their choices.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Temporal foreknowledge logically entails that future events are already actual, undermining libertarian freedom.
?
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.