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 Molinism (Middle Knowledge) is inconsistent with human free action.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Molinism is committed to the position that the truth of a counterfactual of freedom is explanatorily prior to God's decision to create us.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The truth of a counterfactual to the effect that if I were in circumstance C I would do A is strictly inconsistent with my refraining from A in C.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, my refraining from A in C is precluded by something prior in the order of explanation to my act in C.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Libertarian free will requires that the agent could have done otherwise given the exact same prior conditions (the Principle of Alternative Possibilities).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If a true counterfactual of creaturely freedom fixes what an agent does in C prior to any act of will, no robust 'could have done otherwise' remains available to that agent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Robert Adams's grounding objection shows that basing agent freedom on pre-volitional counterfactual truths displaces the agent as the ultimate source of her own action, violating sourcehood requirements central to libertarianism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.William Hasker argues that if God's middle knowledge is logically prior to creation, the counterfactuals constraining agents are not grounded in those agents' own future free choices but in brute, agent-independent modal facts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Brute modal facts that are explanatorily prior to an agent's deliberation constitute a form of manipulation structurally analogous to causal determination, as Fischer and Ravizza's reasons-responsiveness framework confirms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An action whose ultimate explanatory ground lies outside the agent's own deliberative process fails the 'reasons-responsiveness' and 'self-authorship' conditions required for genuine libertarian freedom.
      ?

      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.