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 the denial of future contingent truth dissolves the fa... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

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

    If the denial of future contingent truth dissolves the fatalist inference in the logical case, theological fatalism requires an additional premise—God's infallible belief—that itself presupposes a determinate truth to track.

    ?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.

    Key Terms

    Determinate truth(in metaphysics and logic)
    A statement that has a definite answer—it's either definitely true or definitely false, not uncertain or in-between.
    Fatalist inference(in logic)
    The logical argument or chain of reasoning that supposedly proves fatalism is true.
    Future contingent truth(in logic and metaphysics)
    A statement about something that might or might not happen in the future—like 'it will rain tomorrow'—where we're uncertain whether it's true or false right now.
    Presupposes(as describing what Plantinga's argument takes for granted)
    Assumes something to be true without proving it—like how an argument might presuppose that logic works, without first arguing that logic is valid.
    Theological fatalism

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Explore a random proposition
    Start fresh with something unrelated.
    (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.
    fatalism(Presented as a consequence allegedly entailed by backward causation.)
    The view that all events are fixed in advance and inevitable, such that agents cannot do otherwise than they do.
    infallible belief(Used in accounts of foundational epistemic justification; criticized for being too broad.)
    A belief in proposition P such that believing P entails that P is true.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Free Will & Foreknowledge1 linked

    Related

    The denial of future contingent truth is not sufficient to avoid the problem of ...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    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