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 God is infallible in all his beliefs, then it is not p... — Carmelics
    Home/Free Will & Foreknowledge
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The denial of future contingent truth is not sufficient to avoid the problem of theological fatalism.

    If God is infallible in all his beliefs, then it is not possible that God believes T and T is either false or becomes false. If so, and if God believes T, we get an argument for theological fatalism that parallels the basic argument.

    Free Will & Foreknowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Topics

    Free Will & Foreknowledge

    Key Terms

    Becomes false(distinguishing between something that is false versus something that changes to become false)
    Changes from being true at one time to being false at a later time.
    Parallels(describing how this argument about God mirrors another argument)
    Follows the same logical structure or pattern as something else, even if the details are different.
    Theological fatalism(the main argument being referenced)
    The idea that if God knows the future perfectly, then the future is already fixed and unavoidable—nothing we do can change what will happen.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Free Will & Foreknowledge
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    infallible(contrasting with 'reasonable judgments' to show rationality doesn't require perfection)
    Completely perfect and never making mistakes; impossible to be wrong.

    Related

    Future contingents that fail to be true for presentist reasons alone might never...The denial of future contingent truth is not sufficient to avoid the problem of ...

    Similar

    If T could turn out false and the belief that T could be incorrect, th...85%The argument for theological fatalism is valid (if the premises are al...84%Middle Knowledge does not entail the falsehood of any premise of the b...84%It is hard to maintain that God's belief that T is infallible (as clai...82%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: free-will-foreknowledge
    View source passageHide passage
    It is not clear, however, that the denial of future contingent truth is sufficient to avoid the problem of theological fatalism. Hunt (2020) suggests that future contingents that fail to be true for presentist reasons alone might nevertheless qualify as “quasi-true” (Sider 1999, Markosian 2004), and argues that the quasi-truth of God’s beliefs about the future is enough to generate the problem. The following consideration tends in the same direction. According to the definition of infallibility used in the basic argument, if God is infallible in all his beliefs, then it is not possible that Go...

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective