On the cannot of infallibility
We content that a very seductive argument for theological fatalism fails. In the course of our discussion we point out that theological fatalism is incompatible with the existence of a being who is omnipotent, omniscient and infallible. We end by suggesting that ‘possible’ formalized as ‘◊’ is to be...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Electronic Article |
Language: | English |
Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
Journals Online & Print: | |
Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
Published: |
Springer Netherlands
2005
|
In: |
Sophia
Year: 2005, Volume: 44, Issue: 1, Pages: 125-127 |
Further subjects: | B
Religious Study
B Modal Logic B Strong Argument B Intended Target B Logical Study |
Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
Summary: | We content that a very seductive argument for theological fatalism fails. In the course of our discussion we point out that theological fatalism is incompatible with the existence of a being who is omnipotent, omniscient and infallible. We end by suggesting that ‘possible’ formalized as ‘◊’ is to be understood as ‘can or could have been’ and not simply as ‘can’. The argument we discuss conflates the two. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1873-930X |
Contains: | Enthalten in: Sophia
|
Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1007/BF02780486 |