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 We cannot do anything about the future.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Agents can influence the future through deliberate action, which is why deliberation and planning are rational activities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If we genuinely could not do anything about the future, practical reasoning and intentional action would be incoherent, yet they are not.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The asymmetry between past and future is not metaphysical necessity but reflects epistemic and causal openness in the direction of time.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.On an Ockhamist account, God's past belief about future contingents is a 'soft fact' whose content depends on what agents freely do.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the content of God's foreknowledge is constitutively dependent on future free choices, then agents' actions are among the conditions that fix what God knows.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Transfer-of-necessity principles like P2 fail when the entailment runs from free action to the prior belief, not from prior belief to constrained action.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.We cannot now do anything about the fact that God timelessly knows T.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If there is nothing we can do about a timeless state, there is nothing we can do about what such a state entails.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.God's timeless knowing entails the future.
      ?

      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.