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 compatibilist about infallible foreknowledge and free... — Carmelics
    Home/Free Will & Foreknowledge
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The compatibilist about infallible foreknowledge and free will must find a false premise in the argument for theological fatalism.

    Free Will & Foreknowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The argument for theological fatalism is valid (if the premises are all true, the conclusion follows).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.There is a consensus that the argument or something close to it is valid.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Compatibilists like Alvin Plantinga and William Hasker have argued the fatalist argument commits a modal fallacy by conflating necessity of the consequence with necessity of the consequent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the argument is formally invalid due to this modal equivocation, the compatibilist need not reject any premise but instead expose a structural defect in the reasoning itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Identifying a logical fallacy in an argument is distinct from, and does not require, finding a false premise among its stated propositions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Linda Zagzebski's Ockhamist tradition distinguishes 'hard' facts about the past from 'soft' facts that are only accidentally about the past, undermining the premise that foreknowledge is strictly fixed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If God's past belief about a future free act is a soft fact ontologically dependent on that future act, the fixity-of-the-past premise in the fatalist argument is false, not merely challenged.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The compatibilist thus has an established, historically grounded path to rejecting a specific false premise rather than being logically compelled to accept fatalism.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    Free Will & Foreknowledge

    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.

    Related

    Compatibilists like Alvin Plantinga and William Hasker have argued the fatalist ...Identifying a logical fallacy in an argument is distinct from, and does not requ...If God's past belief about a future free act is a soft fact ontologically depend...If the argument is formally invalid due to this modal equivocation, the compatib...
    +4 moreShow less
    Linda Zagzebski's Ockhamist tradition distinguishes 'hard' facts about the past ...The argument for theological fatalism is valid (if the premises are all true, th...The compatibilist thus has an established, historically grounded path to rejecti...There is a consensus that the argument or something close to it is valid.

    Similar

    The theological fatalist argument purports to show that infallible div...90%Incompatibilists accept the incompatibility of infallible foreknowledg...84%If God is infallible in all his beliefs, then it is not possible that ...82%The soundness of the argument for theological fatalism must not be obv...82%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: free-will-foreknowledge
    View source passageHide passage
    This argument is formulated in a way that makes its logical form as perspicuous as possible, and there is a consensus that this argument or something close to it is valid. That is, if the premises are all true, the conclusion follows. The compatibilist about infallible foreknowledge and free will must therefore find a false premise. There are four premises that are not straightforward substitutions in definitions: (1), (2), (5), and (9). All four of these premises have come under attack in the history of discussion of theological fatalism. Aristotle’s concern about future contingent truth has ...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit