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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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