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 It is hard to maintain that God's belief that T is infallible (as claimed in premise (1)).

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.T concerns the contingent future: it is still possible for you to refrain from answering the phone at 9 tomorrow morning, even though (by supposition) you will answer it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Because T is contingent, it is still possible for T to turn out false (though it won't), and still possible for the belief that T to be incorrect (though it isn't).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If T could turn out false and the belief that T could be incorrect, then the belief is not infallible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Infallibility, properly understood, concerns the modal status of the belief-forming process, not the modal status of the proposition believed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A belief is infallible if no possible world contains that belief being held and being false simultaneously, which is compatible with the proposition itself being contingent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.God's omniscience entails that in every world where God believes T, T is true—this counterfactual reliability is precisely what infallibility requires, per Alvin Plantinga's proper function epistemology.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The objection conflates de dicto and de re possibility: it is possible that T is false, but it is not possible that God believes T and T is false.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.William Alston's account of epistemic justification distinguishes between a proposition's contingency and the reliability of a belief-forming mechanism tracking that proposition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Divine beliefs formed through timeless eternal cognition, as Boethius and Aquinas argue, track contingent truths with necessity because eternity encompasses all temporal possibilities simultaneously.
      ?

      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.