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
    Pike's 1965 formulation of the foreknowledge argument der... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The idea of the necessity of the past may be confused.

    Pike's 1965 formulation of the foreknowledge argument derives the necessity of the past from transfer-of-necessity principles, not from confused causal intuitions.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Pike's argument relies on formal logical principles (like the transfer of necessity through entailment) rather than intuitive causal reasoning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The necessity of the past follows validly from the logical structure that if God knew p at t1, then p's truth is now necessary, independent of causal intuitions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This approach avoids conflating logical necessity with causal determination, making it more rigorous than prior foreknowledge arguments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Transfer-of-necessity principles themselves rely on unstated causal or metaphysical intuitions about how truth and knowledge constrain possibilities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Pike's formulation assumes the past is genuinely necessary without justifying why God's prior knowledge should fix past truth-values at all.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Even formal logical derivations require substantive premises about time, knowledge, and modality that embed controversial intuitive commitments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Key Terms

    knowledge(Distinguished from mere true belief, which may be the product of indoctrination and need not exercise deliberative capacities.)
    Justified true belief — true belief that has been arrived at through the exercise of deliberative capacities, including comparison of and deliberation among alternatives.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Free Will & Foreknowledge1 linked

    Related

    Even formal logical derivations require substantive premises about time, knowled...Pike's argument relies on formal logical principles (like the transfer of necess...Pike's formulation assumes the past is genuinely necessary without justifying wh...The idea of the necessity of the past may be confused.
    +3 moreShow less
    The necessity of the past follows validly from the logical structure that if God...This approach avoids conflating logical necessity with causal determination, mak...Transfer-of-necessity principles themselves rely on unstated causal or metaphysi...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit