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 Middle knowledge is logically prior to God's creative decree, so foreknowledge tracks free choices rather than determining them.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Middle knowledge's claim that God knows counterfactuals independent of His will is unclear—what grounds such knowledge if not God's decree or nature?
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Even if foreknowledge doesn't causally determine choices, knowing with certainty what someone will freely choose seems incompatible with their genuine contingency.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The logical priority distinction collapses under scrutiny: if God's knowledge is infallible, the future is settled regardless of the ordering of logical operations.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
If God's knowledge causally determined choices, those choices wouldn't be free—they'd be necessitated by prior divine knowledge, violating libertarian freedom.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Middle knowledge allows God to know counterfactuals about free creatures without creating them, preserving both omniscience and genuine agent autonomy.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Logical priority explains how foreknowledge can be comprehensive yet non-coercive: God knows what free agents would choose before deciding to actualize that world.
?
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.