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 Fischer's bootstrapping account of divine foreknowledge fails.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The account is circular: it relies on God's self-knowledge of his own infallibility to establish infallibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The account couldn't support anything close to exhaustive foreknowledge, since most future contingent truths will lack knowledge-conferring situations at any given time.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Fischer's account presupposes that God's belief-forming process is reliable, but reliability itself must be grounded in something external to God's self-attestation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Alvin Plantinga's proper function epistemology requires that warrant-conferring faculties be designed to track truth, a standard Fischer's introspective bootstrapping cannot independently satisfy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A belief-forming process that validates its own infallibility via the outputs of that very process exemplifies the 'easy knowledge' problem Vogel and Cohen identify in epistemic circularity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Linda Zagzebski's dilemma for middle knowledge shows that grounding foreknowledge in God's cognitive situation requires either libertarian-incompatible determination or vicious epistemic regress.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Fischer's bootstrapping generates only de se knowledge of God's own reliability, which cannot bridge the logical gap to de re knowledge of specific future contingent actions by free agents.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.William Hasker argues that no intrinsic divine cognitive state can constitute knowledge of libertarian-free future acts without an external truth-maker, a constraint Fischer's account structurally ignores.
      ?

      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.