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
    Incompatibilists deny either infallible foreknowledge or ... — Carmelics
    Home/Free Will & Foreknowledge
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Incompatibilists deny either infallible foreknowledge or free will in the sense targeted by the argument.

    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
    ?
    • Incompatibilists accept the incompatibility of infallible foreknowledge and human free will.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Middle knowledge (Molinism) allows God to foreknow free choices via counterfactuals of creaturely freedom without causally determining them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If Molinist foreknowledge is coherent, incompatibilists cannot simply deny foreknowledge—they must first refute a sophisticated compatibilist alternative.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Plantinga and Flint have defended middle knowledge as internally consistent, shifting the burden of proof back to incompatibilists.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Open theists like William Hasker deny infallible foreknowledge of free acts, but this constitutes a revision of classical theism, not a refutation of the dilemma's logical structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Denying foreknowledge resolves the epistemic conflict only by relocating the problem to divine omniscience, leaving the incompatibilist thesis itself unargued against.
      ?

      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

    Key Terms

    knowledge(Distinguished from mere true belief, which may be the product of indoctrination and need not exercise deliberative capacities.)
    Justified true belief — true belief that has been arrived at through the exercise of deliberative capacities, including comparison of and deliberation among alternatives.

    Related

    Denying foreknowledge resolves the epistemic conflict only by relocating the pro...If Molinist foreknowledge is coherent, incompatibilists cannot simply deny forek...Incompatibilists accept the incompatibility of infallible foreknowledge and huma...Middle knowledge (Molinism) allows God to foreknow free choices via counterfactu...
    +2 moreShow less
    Open theists like William Hasker deny infallible foreknowledge of free acts, but...Plantinga and Flint have defended middle knowledge as internally consistent, shi...

    Similar

    Incompatibilists accept the incompatibility of infallible foreknowledg...87%The compatibilist about infallible foreknowledge and free will must fi...81%The theological fatalist argument purports to show that infallible div...81%The argument showing that an infallibly foreknown act is not under the...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted2/3 agreementValid
    SEP: free-will-foreknowledge
    View source passageHide passage
    This theological fatalist argument creates a dilemma for anyone who thinks it important to maintain both (1) there is a deity who infallibly knows the entire future, and (2) human beings have free will in the strong sense usually called libertarian. But it has also fascinated many who have not shared either of these commitments, because taking the argument’s full measure requires rethinking some of the most fundamental questions in philosophy, especially ones concerning time, truth, and modality. Those philosophers who think there is a way to consistently maintain both (1) and (2) are called c...
    Extraction notes

    Validity: The passage explicitly states that incompatibilists accept the incompatibility and therefore deny either infallible foreknowledge or free will, making the extracted argument a faithful representation of the support relationship present in the source.

    Confidence: Explicitly stated in the text.

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit