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 doctrine of Middle Knowledge is neither necessary nor sufficient by itself to avoid theological fatalism.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Middle Knowledge uniquely grounds God's foreknowledge in counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, which are logically prior to God's creative decree.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without Middle Knowledge, no alternative account can explain how God foreknows free acts without either collapsing into simple foreknowledge or making freedom illusory.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If Middle Knowledge is the only coherent mechanism preserving both libertarian freedom and exhaustive divine foreknowledge, it is by definition necessary to avoid fatalism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Freddoso's and Flint's supplementary commitments are not independent rejections of fatalism but are themselves entailed by accepting Middle Knowledge as a foundational explanatory framework.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If Middle Knowledge explains why truths about free acts are not accidentally necessary relative to agents, then the apparent need for additional solutions dissolves from within the Molinist framework itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Middle Knowledge does not entail the falsehood of any premise of the basic argument for theological fatalism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Freddoso argues that Molina rejects the closure of accidental necessity under entailment, but for reasons closer to the Dependence Solution rather than Middle Knowledge alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Flint rejects some steps of the fatalist argument in addition to defending Middle Knowledge, implying Middle Knowledge alone is insufficient.
      ?

      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.