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 If middle knowledge successfully explains foreknowledge without causal dependence, causal dependence cannot be established as the uniquely best model.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Middle knowledge's explanatory success is contested; many philosophers argue it merely relocates rather than solves the foreknowledge problem.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Causal models better explain how divine knowledge relates to the actual world we inhabit, not merely possible worlds.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Being 'uniquely best' requires explaining not just foreknowledge but divine agency, intentionality, and providence—where causation excels.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Middle knowledge provides a logically coherent model where God knows all possibilities without determining outcomes, unlike causal models.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If multiple explanatory models are equally successful, parsimony doesn't favor the one requiring causal chains through time.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Causal dependence creates logical problems (infinite regress, fatalism) that middle knowledge avoids, suggesting it's not uniquely superior.
?
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.