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 the Geachian view, God's beliefs about the contingent future constitute genuine knowledge.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Knowledge requires a truth-maker that is settled and determinate at the time of belief formation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
On the Geachian view, contingent future propositions lack a determinate truth value prior to the relevant events.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
A belief formed about an indeterminate proposition cannot constitute genuine knowledge, regardless of divine reliability.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Tracking a 'direction' of the future presupposes a causal or modal connection between the belief and its object.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If future contingents are genuinely open, no such connection can ground the belief's content without collapsing the contingency.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Geachian soft facts about God's beliefs therefore either undermine genuine openness or fail the tracking condition for knowledge.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
God's beliefs about the contingent future track the changing truth about where the future is headed.
?
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.