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
    God's knowledge of such truths is neither purely natural ... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

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

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

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Necessary truths (like mathematical or logical facts) cannot be objects of free choice, since their truth is independent of any will.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.God's knowledge cannot depend on natural causal processes, yet necessary truths seem to require neither natural causation nor voluntary selection.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The biconditional assumes all divine knowledge fits the natural/freely-chosen dichotomy, but necessary truths may constitute a third epistemic category.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.God's omniscience might transcend the natural/free distinction entirely, making the dichotomy inapplicable rather than falsifying it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Necessary truths could be freely known if God's nature necessarily constitutes them, making God's knowledge both essential and free.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim assumes 'purely natural' and 'freely chosen' are exhaustive categories; unstated options like 'constitutively essential' remain available.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Key Terms

    knowledge(Distinguished from mere true belief, which may be the product of indoctrination and need not exercise deliberative capacities.)
    Justified true belief — true belief that has been arrived at through the exercise of deliberative capacities, including comparison of and deliberation among alternatives.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Free Will & Foreknowledge1 linkedDivine Attributes1 linked

    Related

    A true proposition belongs to God's free knowledge if and only if it is a contin...God's knowledge cannot depend on natural causal processes, yet necessary truths ...God's omniscience might transcend the natural/free distinction entirely, making ...Necessary truths (like mathematical or logical facts) cannot be objects of free ...
    +3 moreShow less
    Necessary truths could be freely known if God's nature necessarily constitutes t...The biconditional assumes all divine knowledge fits the natural/freely-chosen di...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit
    The claim assumes 'purely natural' and 'freely chosen' are exhaustive categories...