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 On an Ockhamist account, God's past belief about future contingents is a 'soft fact' whose content depends on what agents freely do.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If God's belief depends on Jones's future choice, God's belief is not genuinely about the future but retroactively determined—making divine omniscience temporal and revisable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The soft fact distinction blurs the metaphysical line between facts and interpretations, making it unclear what grounds the truth of God's belief independent of the choice itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Calling God's past belief 'soft' merely relabels the problem of divine foreknowledge without solving whether past facts can logically fail to necessitate present truths.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If God's beliefs about future contingents were 'hard facts,' they would causally determine agent choices, undermining libertarian free will.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Soft facts (facts about the past whose truth-value depends on present or future events) coherently preserve both God's omniscience and human freedom.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.God's past belief that 'Jones will freely choose X' can be true without constraining Jones, since the belief's content is constitutively dependent on Jones's actual choice.
      ?

      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.