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 God's knowledge of such truths is neither purely natural nor freely chosen in the relevant sense, falsifying the proposed biconditional.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
God's omniscience might transcend the natural/free distinction entirely, making the dichotomy inapplicable rather than falsifying it.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Necessary truths (like mathematical or logical facts) cannot be objects of free choice, since their truth is independent of any will.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
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.