Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that The compatibility of divine foreknowledge and human freedom can be defended.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
If God infallibly knows at T1 that agent A will do X at T2, then it is necessary that A does X at T2.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
An action that is necessary cannot be otherwise, and an action that cannot be otherwise is not free in any meaningful libertarian sense.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Therefore, infallible foreknowledge is logically incompatible with the libertarian freedom required for genuine moral responsibility.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
The claim that God's foreknowledge 'depends on' future free acts inverts the classical divine aseity doctrine, which holds God's knowledge is not causally derived from creation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A God whose knowledge is dependent on contingent human acts is not the metaphysically independent, eternally self-sufficient being of classical theism.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
God's foreknowledge of future contingents depends on the foreknown events themselves, including future exercises of human free will.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Human actions are independent of God's foreknowledge of them.
?
How convincing is this?
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