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 there is a being who infallibly knows everything that will happen in the future, no human being has any control over the future.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Boethius and Aquinas argue God exists in eternal simultaneity, perceiving all of time at once rather than foreknowing it sequentially.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
An eternal being's timeless knowledge of an act no more removes its freedom than a present observer's witnessing removes the freedom of an act seen now.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If simultaneous knowledge of a free act does not eliminate freedom, then God's atemporal 'foreknowledge' poses no special threat to human control.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
God's knowledge of future acts may be grounded in those acts themselves, meaning the acts cause the foreknowledge, not vice versa.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If foreknowledge is causally downstream of free acts, the agent retains control over both the act and the fact of its being foreknown.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
The argument showing that an infallibly foreknown act is not under the agent's control can be applied to any infallibly foreknown act of any human being.
?
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.