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 On Ockhamist grounds, God's timeless belief about T is a 'soft fact' whose content is counterfactually dependent on what we freely do.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Soft facts about God's timeless beliefs seem incoherent: timelessness means no temporal dependency, yet soft facts require it.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Grounding counterfactual dependence without circularity is difficult; it's unclear what makes God's belief depend on free acts.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Ockham's parsimony doesn't justify ontological claims about God's nature; metaphysical structure may require brute modal facts.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Ockham's razor favors ontologies minimizing brute facts; soft facts reduce primitive modal facts about God's knowledge.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If God's beliefs were hard facts independent of creaturely choices, divine foreknowledge would entail logical fatalism.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Counterfactual dependence preserves human freedom while maintaining God's omniscience without adding unexplained necessities.
?
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.