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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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