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 Ockham's distinction between hard and soft facts about the past shows that some past truths—like God's past beliefs—remain modally open relative to future actions.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The hard/soft fact distinction relies on an intuitive but ultimately circular criterion: softness is defined by dependence on the future, which already assumes the answer.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If God's past belief is true now, its truth-value is fixed regardless of whether we label it 'soft'—modal openness requires metaphysical, not merely semantic, indeterminacy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Ockham's move only relocates the problem: it leaves unexplained how a soft fact can be genuinely true about the past while remaining metaphysically open.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Hard facts (e.g., Caesar crossed the Rubicon) are about past events themselves; soft facts (e.g., God believed Caesar would cross) depend on future contingencies.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If God's past beliefs are soft facts, they can vary with what agents freely choose to do, preserving genuine modal openness about future actions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This distinction solves the theological problem: divine foreknowledge doesn't necessitate future events if those beliefs aren't hard facts about the past.
      ?

      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.