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 Robert Adams's objection that counterfactuals of freedom lack truth-makers does not establish impossibility but only epistemic or metaphysical uncertainty about Molinist providence.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If counterfactuals lack truth-makers, they lack determinate truth-values, making God's knowledge of them logically impossible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Distinguishing unknowability from impossibility requires explaining what grounds counterfactual facts—the original problem remains.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Appealing to divine intuition as truth-maker merely relocates the problem rather than solving the metaphysical grounding issue.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Lack of truth-makers entails only unknowability, not logical contradiction or metaphysical impossibility in principle.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Molinism can coherently posit God's knowledge of counterfactuals via divine intuition even without naturalistic truth-maker accounts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Adams conflates semantic/epistemic gaps with modal impossibility, a distinction standard logic preserves.
      ?

      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.