Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Theological determinism is therefore compatible with a modified free will defense that locates culpability in creaturely second causes.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
If God determines all events in creation, then creaturely choices lack the alternative possibilities required for genuine moral responsibility.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Labeling human choices 'second causes' merely relabels the problem rather than solving it—they remain determined by prior divine acts.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Compatibilist accounts of free will strain credibility when applied to omnipotent beings whose will is the ultimate causal source of all creation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
God's foreknowledge of all events need not causally determine them if creatures possess genuine causal powers independent of divine willing.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Second causes can be both ontologically dependent on God and still be the actual efficient causes of human actions.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Moral responsibility can coherently attach to creatures even within a deterministic system if their actions flow from their own desires and reasoning.
?
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.