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 Peter had freely chosen not to deny Jesus, then Jesus ... — Carmelics
    Home/Free Will & Foreknowledge
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    If Peter had freely chosen not to deny Jesus, then Jesus would never have prophesied that Peter would deny him.

    Free Will & Foreknowledge
    ?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 a person were about to freely choose to do something, then God would have known about it from eternity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.God acts in accordance with God's eternal foreknowledge.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Peter's denial was a contingent future event dependent on Peter's free choice.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Prophetic utterances are performative speech acts that partly constitute the future rather than merely describe an independently fixed reality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If prophecy is constitutive rather than merely descriptive, then the counterfactual 'Peter would not deny' cannot coherently subtract the prophecy while preserving Peter's free choice as the sole variable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The supporting argument illicitly assumes a one-way dependence from choice to prophecy, ignoring the possibility that divine speech and human action are mutually conditioning within a single providential structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.On Ockhamist accounts, God's past-tensed belief that Peter will deny is a 'soft fact' about the past, whose obtaining is itself counterfactually dependent on Peter's future free act.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If God's prophetic declaration is likewise a soft fact, then the conditional 'if Peter had freely denied, God would have prophesied' is equally valid as its converse, rendering the original claim's directionality arbitrary.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Asymmetric counterfactual dependence from choice to prophecy requires a principled account of temporal grounding that neither the claim nor its supporting arguments supply.
      ?

      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

    Free Will & Foreknowledge

    Connections

    2 topics

    Divine Attributes2 linkedModality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    Asymmetric counterfactual dependence from choice to prophecy requires a principl...God acts in accordance with God's eternal foreknowledge.If God's prophetic declaration is likewise a soft fact, then the conditional 'if...If a person were about to freely choose to do something, then God would have kno...
    +5 moreShow less
    If prophecy is constitutive rather than merely descriptive, then the counterfact...On Ockhamist accounts, God's past-tensed belief that Peter will deny is a 'soft ...Peter's denial was a contingent future event dependent on Peter's free choice.

    Similar

    Peter's denial was a contingent future event dependent on Peter's free...82%The only remaining option to avoid the conclusion is to deny Premise (...73%If there is nothing you can do about the fact that he infallibly belie...71%Therefore, there is nothing you can do now about the fact that he beli...71%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: prophecy
    View source passageHide passage
    William Ockham (c.1285–1347), a highly influential Christian philosopher and theologian from the medieval period, suggested an interesting way of accounting for God’s knowledge of the contingent future and resolving the problem of prophecy. (For more detailed presentations of Ockham’s views, see the introduction to Ockham 1983 by Adams and the introduction to Molina 1988 by Freddoso.) Ockham claims that what a prophet has truly revealed about the contingent future “could have been and can be fa
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    Prophetic utterances are performative speech acts that partly constitute the fut...
    The supporting argument illicitly assumes a one-way dependence from choice to pr...
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit