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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The compatibilist about infallible foreknowledge and free will must find a false premise in the argument for theological fatalism.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42