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 CPP is weaker than the claim that Jones' act at t2 causes God's belief at t1.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Counterfactual dependence without causation still constitutes a substantive metaphysical relation between Jones' act and God's prior belief.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If God's belief counterfactually depends on Jones' act, then Jones bears the same kind of modal responsibility for God's belief as he would under direct causation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The distinction between causal and non-causal counterfactual dependence does not weaken the incompatibilist's core claim that Jones' act fixes the past.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Flint and Freddoso's 'Maximal Power' framework shows that any power over God's prior beliefs entails a power over the past, making CPP no less problematic than direct causation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Fischer's own transfer-of-powerlessness principle applies equally to non-causal dependencies, so CPP's weakness relative to causation is dialectically irrelevant to the original incompatibilist argument.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.CPP does not require the assumption that what Jones does at t2 causes God to have the belief he has at t1.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Causation does not reduce to a counterfactual dependency of an effect on its cause.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The dependency of God's belief on Jones' act need not be a causal dependency.
      ?

      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.