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 Molinism posits middle knowledge of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, which are contingent yet outside God's direct causal control.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Counterfactuals of creaturely freedom lack truth-makers independent of God; God must causally ground their truth or they're undefined.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Middle knowledge remains metaphysically obscure—unclear how God cognizes facts about unrealized possible worlds without determining them.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If creatures are truly free, their counterfactual truths depend on their own natures, not God's knowledge, making middle knowledge superfluous.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
God's omniscience requires knowledge of all truths, including counterfactual truths about what free creatures would do in any circumstance.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Divine omnipotence and human freedom are compatible only if God knows free choices without determining them through causal control.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Middle knowledge explains how God can infallibly foreknow contingent events while preserving genuine creaturely libertarian freedom.
?
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.