On the Infinite God Objection: a Reply to Jacobus Erasmus and Anné Hendrik Verhoef
Erasmus and Verhoef suggest that a promising response to the infinite God objection to the Kalām cosmological argument include showing that (1) abstract objects do not exist; (2) actually infinite knowledge is impossible; and (3) redefining omniscience as (G): for any proposition p, if God conscious...
| Главный автор: | |
|---|---|
| Другие авторы: | |
| Формат: | Электронный ресурс Статья |
| Язык: | Английский |
| Проверить наличие: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Загрузка...
|
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Опубликовано: |
[2016]
|
| В: |
Sophia
Год: 2016, Том: 55, Выпуск: 2, Страницы: 263-272 |
| Индексация IxTheo: | AB Философия религии NBC Бог |
| Другие ключевые слова: | B
Kalam Cosmological Argument
B Omniscience B Infinite God objection B Abstract objects |
| Online-ссылка: |
Presumably Free Access Volltext (Publisher) Volltext (doi) |
| Итог: | Erasmus and Verhoef suggest that a promising response to the infinite God objection to the Kalām cosmological argument include showing that (1) abstract objects do not exist; (2) actually infinite knowledge is impossible; and (3) redefining omniscience as (G): for any proposition p, if God consciously thinks about p, God will either accept p as true if and only if p is true, or accept p as false if and only if p is false. I argue that there is insufficient motivation for showing (1) and (2) and that (G) is problematic as a definition of omniscience. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1873-930X |
| Reference: | Kritik von "The Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Infinite God Objection (2015)"
Kritik in "Loke on the Infinite God Objection (2018)" |
| Второстепенные работы: | Enthalten in: Sophia
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1007/s11841-016-0539-8 |
