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
    Paradigm examples of soft facts—facts that are surely sof... — Carmelics
    Home/Free Will & Foreknowledge
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→A successful Ockhamist response to theological fatalism need not await the definitive formulation of necessary and sufficient conditions for soft facthood.

    Paradigm examples of soft facts—facts that are surely soft, if any facts are soft—are enough for the job.

    Free Will & Foreknowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Topics

    Free Will & Foreknowledge

    Related

    A successful Ockhamist response to theological fatalism need not await the defin...

    Similar

    A successful Ockhamist response to theological fatalism need not await...66%

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Free Will & Foreknowledge
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    If T could turn out false and the belief that T could be incorrect, th...62%
    Without a distinction between contingent and necessary truths, every f...61%
    There is more at stake in Zeno's Achilles paradox than the fleetness o...61%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: free-will-foreknowledge
    View source passageHide passage
    Adams’s argument was unsuccessful since, among other things, her criterion for being a hard fact had the consequence that no fact is a hard fact (Fischer 1989, introduction), but it led to a series of attempts to bolster it by giving more refined definitions of a “hard fact” and the type of necessity such facts are said to have—what Ockham called “accidental necessity” (necessity per accidens). The resulting formulations became so refined and elaborate, in an effort to avoid possible counterexamples, that they risked becoming detached from the simple intuition they were intended to capture. Re...

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective