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
    Therefore, contingency alone is insufficient to distingui... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→A true proposition belongs to God's free knowledge if and only if it is a contingent truth within God's control

    Therefore, contingency alone is insufficient to distinguish free knowledge; the locus of control must also be specified, undermining the biconditional.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Two scenarios can be equally contingent yet differ in control: agent-caused vs. event-caused outcomes require different loci to distinguish free knowledge.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Biconditionals require both directions to hold; contingency alone permits outcomes where events are contingent but control is absent or external.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Medieval debates on divine foreknowledge show contingency is compatible with God's knowledge yet incompatible with human free agency—locus matters.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Specifying locus of control merely relocates the problem: we still need criteria determining whether that locus genuinely grounds free knowledge.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Contingency+control may reduce to the same metaphysical fact; separating them assumes they're conceptually distinct without establishing that distinction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If free knowledge requires internal control, this begs the question against compatibilists who argue external causal chains preserve freedom.
      ?

      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.

    Key Terms

    knowledge(Distinguished from mere true belief, which may be the product of indoctrination and need not exercise deliberative capacities.)
    Justified true belief — true belief that has been arrived at through the exercise of deliberative capacities, including comparison of and deliberation among alternatives.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Free Will & Foreknowledge1 linkedDivine Attributes1 linked

    Related

    A true proposition belongs to God's free knowledge if and only if it is a contin...Biconditionals require both directions to hold; contingency alone permits outcom...Contingency+control may reduce to the same metaphysical fact; separating them as...If free knowledge requires internal control, this begs the question against comp...
    +3 moreShow less
    Medieval debates on divine foreknowledge show contingency is compatible with God...Specifying locus of control merely relocates the problem: we still need criteria...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit
    Two scenarios can be equally contingent yet differ in control: agent-caused vs. ...