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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that If physical possibility grounds the necessity of the past, contingent physical laws cannot underwrite the modal force needed for theological fatalism arguments.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Necessity of the past holds regardless of law-contingency; once events occur, their occurrence becomes a fixed fact independent of laws.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Theological fatalism doesn't require physical laws to be necessary; God's causal determination suffices even with contingent laws.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Physical possibility grounding the past's necessity is about actuality, not modality; contingency of laws is irrelevant to factual fixity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Contingent laws lack necessity by definition, so they cannot ground necessity of past events through physical possibility alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Theological fatalism requires that God's foreknowledge entails necessity; contingent physical laws cannot bridge this logical gap.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If physical laws are contingent, alternative physical law-systems are metaphysically possible, undermining deterministic modal claims.
      ?

      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.