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 God's not knowing in advance how we will exercise our freedom is not a mark against his omniscience.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Middle knowledge (Molinism) holds that God knows counterfactuals of creaturely freedom as true prior to any creative act, grounding foreknowledge without determinism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If such 'would' conditionals have determinate truth values independent of temporal conditions, P2 of the supporting argument fails and the logical gap Swinburne exploits closes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A God lacking middle knowledge would be less cognitively perfect than a Molinist God who knows all true conditionals, making ignorance of free choices a genuine omniscience deficit.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Boethius and Aquinas argue God's eternity places him outside time, so foreknowledge is not prediction but direct eternal presence to all temporal events including free acts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If God timelessly perceives future free choices as a simultaneous whole, the bivalence failure in P2 applies only to temporal knowers, not to an atemporal being whose knowledge has no 'in advance'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Swinburne's argument succeeds only by presupposing divine temporality, which is itself a contested theological position, making the defense of omniscience contingent on a separate metaphysical commitment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If I have free will, there are no conditions presently in place that determine whether I will make a given future decision.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If there are no conditions presently in place that determine a future free decision, then the proposition describing that decision is neither true nor false.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.It is logically impossible to know of a proposition that it is true or that it is false if it is neither true nor false.
      ?

      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.