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
    The argument from P1 therefore conflates the epistemic si... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Omniscience does not extend to knowledge of the future.

    The argument from P1 therefore conflates the epistemic situation of temporal knowers with the cognitive mode traditionally ascribed to an atemporal deity.

    ?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.Temporal knowers access reality sequentially through memory and anticipation; atemporal knowledge requires simultaneous access to all moments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Conflating these modes treats fundamentally different epistemic conditions as equivalent, obscuring whether the argument validly transfers between them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The argument from P1 assumes properties of human temporal cognition apply to atemporal cognition without justifying this cross-categorical leap.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If atemporal knowledge is genuinely possible, the distinction between epistemic modes may be superficial rather than substantive.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Labeling an inference a 'conflation' without demonstrating logical invalidity commits the fallacy of merely naming the problem.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Different cognitive architectures can yield identical truth-tracking about reality, making the mode distinction epistemically irrelevant.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Divine Attributes1 linked

    Related

    Conflating these modes treats fundamentally different epistemic conditions as eq...Different cognitive architectures can yield identical truth-tracking about reali...If atemporal knowledge is genuinely possible, the distinction between epistemic ...Labeling an inference a 'conflation' without demonstrating logical invalidity co...
    +3 moreShow less
    Omniscience does not extend to knowledge of the future.Temporal knowers access reality sequentially through memory and anticipation; at...The argument from P1 assumes properties of human temporal cognition apply to ate...

    Details

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