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 determinacy of the future does not exclude people fro... — Carmelics
    Home/Free Will & Foreknowledge
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The determinacy of the future does not exclude people from having free will.

    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.If people have free will, the fact that the outcome of their future decision is determinate with respect to the past does not affect their ability to choose freely.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.It is the agent's future decision that fixes the present truth value, not the present truth value that fixes the agent's decision.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The agent's future choice causally determines what is true today about that choice, not the other way around.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.If a proposition about my future choice is true now, then no action of mine can make it false, which constitutes a constraint on my will.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The Transfer of Necessity principle (van Inwagen) holds that necessity transfers across entailment, so if the past is necessary and entails my act, my act is necessary.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Retroactive causation by the agent's future choice cannot dissolve the logical fixity of a truth already possessed by a past proposition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Ockham's solution of distinguishing 'hard' from 'soft' facts about the past presupposes a clear metaphysical boundary that Plantinga and Zagzebski show cannot be coherently drawn.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the truth-maker for a present belief about my future act is the act itself, then God's present foreknowledge is constitutively dependent on my act, undermining divine aseity and omniscience as traditionally conceived.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An omniscient being's infallible belief logically cannot be false, so the agent cannot do otherwise than satisfy that belief, violating the Principle of Alternative Possibilities.
      ?

      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

    Connections

    2 topics

    Causation2 linkedMoral Responsibility1 linked

    Related

    An omniscient being's infallible belief logically cannot be false, so the agent ...If a proposition about my future choice is true now, then no action of mine can ...If people have free will, the fact that the outcome of their future decision is ...If the truth-maker for a present belief about my future act is the act itself, t...
    +5 moreShow less
    It is the agent's future decision that fixes the present truth value, not the pr...Ockham's solution of distinguishing 'hard' from 'soft' facts about the past pres...Retroactive causation by the agent's future choice cannot dissolve the logical f...The Transfer of Necessity principle (van Inwagen) holds that necessity transfers...The agent's future choice causally determines what is true today about that choi...

    Similar

    If people have free will, the fact that the outcome of their future de...90%The discussion of free will and the future focuses on determinateness85%Compatibilism holds that free will is compatible with deterministic pr...83%Determinateness and determinism are distinct considerations in the fre...83%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: causation-backwards
    View source passageHide passage
    In contrast, the eternalist could argue that the reason why it is true today that an agent will visit her parents tomorrow is because the agent makes a decision that causally determines her visit before she goes to see them. If the agent makes the opposite decision tomorrow, it will be true today that she will not visit her parents. Whatever she chooses tomorrow, it will be her decision which makes it true today that she is going to see her parents. The outcome of her decision tomorrow is determ
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

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