William Hasker argues that no intrinsic divine cognitive state can constitute knowledge of libertarian-free future acts without an external truth-maker, a constraint Fischer's account structurally ignores.

?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 perspective

Reason against

Based on where you are in your exploration

Fischer's account(in philosophy of religion and free will): A theory about free will and God's knowledge developed by philosopher John Martin Fischer; the statement suggests his view doesn't properly account for what makes claims about the future actually true.
Intrinsic divine cognitive state(in philosophy of religion): God's internal mental state or way of knowing something, considered purely on its own without needing anything outside of God to make it true.
Libertarian-free future acts(in metaphysics and philosophy of free will): Actions that people will freely choose to do in the future in a way that isn't determined by God, fate, or prior causes—the person could have genuinely done something different.
William Hasker(as the originator of the 'no-freeze' objection): A contemporary American philosopher who specializes in philosophy of religion and metaphysics, known for developing arguments about how God can know future events without controlling them.
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.
truth-maker(Contemporary metaphysics; used to articulate Leibniz's premise that all truths require an ontological ground): Something distinct from a truth in virtue of which that truth is true

1 topic