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
    Ockham's solution of distinguishing 'hard' from 'soft' fa... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The determinacy of the future does not exclude people from having free will.

    Ockham's solution of distinguishing 'hard' from 'soft' facts about the past presupposes a clear metaphysical boundary that Plantinga and Zagzebski show cannot be coherently drawn.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Past facts causally affect present facts, but future facts don't; this asymmetry undermines any clean hard/soft distinction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Plantinga's counterexamples show that 'soft' facts (like 'God knew X') entail 'hard' facts (like 'X occurred'), blurring the boundary.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If the distinction collapses, Ockham's solution to divine foreknowledge fails, leaving the free will problem unresolved.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The hard/soft distinction tracks logical dependence, not metaphysical clarity; logical analysis can distinguish them reliably.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Zagzebski's regress argument assumes facts must be intrinsically typed, but the distinction may be relational and context-dependent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Even if boundary-drawing is difficult, some distinctions (like necessity vs. contingency) are useful despite lacking sharp definitions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Free Will & Foreknowledge1 linked

    Related

    Even if boundary-drawing is difficult, some distinctions (like necessity vs. con...If the distinction collapses, Ockham's solution to divine foreknowledge fails, l...Past facts causally affect present facts, but future facts don't; this asymmetry...Plantinga's counterexamples show that 'soft' facts (like 'God knew X') entail 'h...
    +3 moreShow less
    The determinacy of the future does not exclude people from having free will.The hard/soft distinction tracks logical dependence, not metaphysical clarity; l...Zagzebski's regress argument assumes facts must be intrinsically typed, but the ...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit