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's certainty derives from self-knowledge of infalli... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→God can achieve infallible knowledge of future contingents through a 'bootstrapping' process.

    If God's certainty derives from self-knowledge of infallibility rather than direct acquaintance with the future act, the act's freedom is undermined because its occurrence is explanatorily posterior to God's certain belief.

    ?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.If God's belief about an act is grounded in His nature rather than the act's actual occurrence, the act's truth-value depends on what God necessarily is, not on free choice.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Explanatory priority matters for freedom: what grounds a fact constrains what could have been otherwise. If God's certainty grounds the act's occurrence, freedom is illusory.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Self-knowledge of infallibility cannot constitute knowledge of a contingent future act without that act already being metaphysically fixed by God's immutable nature.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Explanatory order doesn't entail causal determination. God's certain belief can be grounded in His nature while the act remains free if causation doesn't transmit between them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The agent's own deliberative process, not God's belief about it, is what determines whether an act is free. God's certainty can supervene on the agent's free choice without undermining it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If God is outside time, temporal explanatory priority is inapplicable. God's knowledge and human freedom operate in logically distinct frameworks that need not conflict.
      ?

      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

    Explanatorily posterior(as used in metaphysics and causality)
    Coming later in the chain of explanation—meaning it's explained or caused by something that comes before it rather than being independent.
    Freedom (of the act)(as used in metaphysics and ethics)
    The quality of an action being genuinely chosen or undetermined—not forced or already set in stone by something else.
    God's certainty(as used in theology and philosophy of religion)
    The idea that God knows things with absolute, perfect confidence—never being wrong or uncertain about anything.
    Undermined(as used in logic and argumentation)
    Weakened or damaged; when something is undermined, it loses its strength or credibility.
    direct acquaintance(Acquaintance theory)
    A non-inferential epistemic relation to a fact or state of affairs that grounds foundational justification for a corresponding belief.
    infallibility(Used by Mill to characterize the epistemic error made by those who would suppress beliefs they take to be false or harmful)
    The assumption that one's own judgment about the truth or falsity of a belief cannot be mistaken
    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.
    self-knowledge(Presented as the sole means to mokṣa, contrasted with ritual action or meditative practice aimed at gaining brahman.)
    A radical epistemic shift by which one simultaneously sheds limited self-identities and directly recognizes one's existence as nondual consciousness.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Free Will & Foreknowledge1 linked

    Related

    Explanatory order doesn't entail causal determination. God's certain belief can ...Explanatory priority matters for freedom: what grounds a fact constrains what co...God can achieve infallible knowledge of future contingents through a 'bootstrapp...If God is outside time, temporal explanatory priority is inapplicable. God's kno...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit
    +3 moreShow less
    If God's belief about an act is grounded in His nature rather than the act's act...Self-knowledge of infallibility cannot constitute knowledge of a contingent futu...The agent's own deliberative process, not God's belief about it, is what determi...