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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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