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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The determinacy of the future does not exclude people from having free will.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.