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
    There is a dilemma for anyone who wants to maintain both ... — Carmelics
    Home/Free Will & Foreknowledge
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    There is a dilemma for anyone who wants to maintain both that there is a deity who infallibly knows the entire future and that human beings have libertarian free will.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • The theological fatalist argument purports to show that infallible divine foreknowledge is incompatible with libertarian free will.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.If God exists timelessly, as Boethius and Aquinas maintained, divine 'foreknowledge' is not temporally prior to human acts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Logical incompatibility between foreknowledge and free will presupposes divine knowledge is temporally antecedent, which timeless eternity denies.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A timeless God perceives all moments in an eternal present, making the inference from necessity of the past inapplicable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.God's knowledge of future free acts may be grounded in middle knowledge of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, as Molina argued.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Middle knowledge is logically prior to God's creative decree, so foreknowledge tracks free choices rather than determining them.
      ?

      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

    Related

    A timeless God perceives all moments in an eternal present, making the inference...God's knowledge of future free acts may be grounded in middle knowledge of count...If God exists timelessly, as Boethius and Aquinas maintained, divine 'foreknowle...Logical incompatibility between foreknowledge and free will presupposes divine k...
    +2 moreShow less
    Middle knowledge is logically prior to God's creative decree, so foreknowledge t...The theological fatalist argument purports to show that infallible divine forekn...

    Similar

    It is primarily considerations of divine omnipotence or sovereignty, r...83%The theological contradiction between human free will and divine forek...78%Disputes about free will ineluctably involve disputes about metaphysic...77%The theological fatalist argument purports to show that infallible div...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted2/3 agreementValid
    SEP: free-will-foreknowledge
    View source passageHide passage
    This theological fatalist argument creates a dilemma for anyone who thinks it important to maintain both (1) there is a deity who infallibly knows the entire future, and (2) human beings have free will in the strong sense usually called libertarian. But it has also fascinated many who have not shared either of these commitments, because taking the argument’s full measure requires rethinking some of the most fundamental questions in philosophy, especially ones concerning time, truth, and modality. Those philosophers who think there is a way to consistently maintain both (1) and (2) are called c...
    Extraction notes

    Validity: The source passage explicitly states that "this theological fatalist argument creates a dilemma for anyone who thinks it important to maintain both (1) and (2)," and the extracted premise accurately captures the basis for that dilemma—namely, that the argument purports to show the incompatibility of infallible foreknowledge and libertarian free will.

    Confidence: The dilemma is stated explicitly in the text.

    Details

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