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
    Since God did not believe T yesterday, premise (1), which... — Carmelics
    Home/Free Will & Foreknowledge
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Premise (1) misrepresents God's relation to time and should be rejected.

    Since God did not believe T yesterday, premise (1), which attributes a temporally located belief to God, is mistaken.

    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

    God is not in time and has no temporal properties.If God is not in time, then God does not have beliefs at a time—God did not beli...Premise (1) misrepresents God's relation to time and should be rejected.Rather, all temporal events are before the mind of God in an atemporal present, ...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Free Will & Foreknowledge
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.

    Similar

    If God is not in time, then God does not have beliefs at a time—God di...85%It is hard to maintain that God's belief that T is infallible (as clai...77%If T could turn out false and the belief that T could be incorrect, th...76%Since God infallibly believed yesterday that you will answer the phone...73%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: free-will-foreknowledge
    View source passageHide passage
    This problem for infallible belief about a contingent future parallels a problem for God’s knowledge of a contingent future. Though the argument for theological fatalism rests only on divine belief rather than knowledge (since the additional conditions for knowledge, beyond true belief, don’t play any role in the argument), God nevertheless wouldn’t believe without knowing. But it’s unclear what could have been cognitively available to God yesterday, when your answering the phone at 9 am tomorrow was still future and contingent, to raise his belief that T from a correct guess to genuine knowle...

    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