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
    If a proposition about the future is true, it is true imm... — Carmelics
    Home/Divine Attributes
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    If a proposition about the future is true, it is true immutably and inevitably

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If 'Socrates will run' is true, no instant can be found when it would be false
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A proposition that cannot be false at any instant is immutably true
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.A proposition can be true at one time and false at another if the future it describes is genuinely open and contingent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.William of Ockham argued that future contingent propositions lack determinate truth values, making immutability inapplicable to them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If 'Socrates will run' has no fixed truth value until the event occurs, the inference to immutability presupposes what it must prove.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aristotle's sea-battle argument in De Interpretatione 9 establishes that bivalence need not apply to future contingent statements.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If future contingents are neither determinately true nor false, then a true future proposition cannot be immutably true, since its truth status is itself unsettled.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    Divine AttributesFree Will & Foreknowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility2 linked

    Related

    A proposition can be true at one time and false at another if the future it desc...A proposition that cannot be false at any instant is immutably trueAristotle's sea-battle argument in De Interpretatione 9 establishes that bivalen...If 'Socrates will run' has no fixed truth value until the event occurs, the infe...
    +3 moreShow less
    If 'Socrates will run' is true, no instant can be found when it would be falseIf future contingents are neither determinately true nor false, then a true futu...William of Ockham argued that future contingent propositions lack determinate tr...

    Similar

    Knowledge of all true propositions would seem to include knowledge of ...83%A proposition that cannot be false at any instant is immutably true82%God has immutable knowledge of the future82%Impossibility of knowing future contingent propositions applies univer...81%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: gregory-rimini
    View source passageHide passage
    Auriol set up two basic rules for such propositions: (1) if a proposition about the future, say, “Socrates will run,” is true, it is true immutably and inevitably, since no instant can be found when it would be false. (2) The significate of such a proposition will inevitably and necessarily be put into being. The foundation for Auriol’s claim is his modal theory: immutability and necessity are the same thing. If something is immutable, it cannot be different from what it is, and so it necessaril
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit