This category needs an editor. We encourage you to help if you are qualified.
Volunteer, or read more about what this involves.
Related categories
Siblings:
19 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Order:
  1. David J. Anderson & Joshua L. Watson (2010). The Mystery of Foreknowledge. Philo 13 (2):136-150.
    Many have attempted to respond to arguments for the incompatibility of freedom with divine foreknowledge by claiming that God’s beliefs about the future are explained by what the world is like at that future time. We argue that this response adequately advances the discussion only if the theist is able to articulate a model of foreknowledge that is both clearly possible and compatible with freedom. We investigate various models the theist might articulate and argue that all of these models fail.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  2. Elizabeth Burns (2005). Michael Martin on Divine Omniscience (2). Think 4 (10):75-78.
    A response to the preceding article by Tom Wanchick.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3. T. Ryan Byerly (2014). God Knows the Future by Ordering the Times. Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion 5.
  4. T. Ryan Byerly (2012). Why Infallible Divine Foreknowledge Cannot Uniquely Threaten Human Freedom, but its Mechanics Might. European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 4 (4):73-94.
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5. Michael J. Cholbi (2003). Contingency and Divine Knowledge in Ockham. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 77 (1):81-91.
    Ockham appeared to maintain that God necessarily knows all true propositions, including future contingent propositions, despite the fact that such propositions have determinate truth values. While some commentators believe that Ockham’s attempt to reconcile divine omniscience with the contingency of true future propositions amounts to little more than a simple-minded assertion of Ockham’s Christian faith, I argue that Ockham’s position is more sophisticated than this and rests on attributing to God a dual knowledge property: God not only knows every true (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6. Daniel Diederich Farmer (2010). Defining Omniscience. Faith and Philosophy 27 (3):306-320.
    In contemporary philosophy of religion, the doctrine of omniscience is typically rendered propositionally, as the claim that God knows all true propositions (and believes none that are false). But feminist work makes clear what even the analytic tradition sometimes confesses, namely, that propositional knowledge is quite limited in scope. The adequacy of propositional conceptions of omniscience is therefore in question. This paper draws on the work of feminist epistemologists to articulate alternative renderings of omniscience which remedy the deficiencies of the (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  7. Matthew Frise (2014). What God Only Knows: A Reply to Rob Lovering. Religious Studies 50 (2):245-254.
    Rob Lovering has recently argued that God is not omniscient on the grounds that (1) in order to be omniscient a subject must not only know all truths always but also know what it's like not to know a truth, and (2) God cannot fulfil both of these requirements. I show that Lovering's argument is unsuccessful since he inadequately supports (1) and (2), and since there are several serious doubts about (2). I also show that Lovering does not otherwise indicate (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8. James Goetz (forthcoming). Semiclassical Theism and the Passage of Planck Times. Theology and Science.
    This paper models God and time in the framework of modern physics. God bridges and simultaneously exists in (1) a universe with infinite tenseless time and (2) a created parallel universe with tensed time and a point origin. The primary attributes of God are inexhaustible love, inexhaustible perception, and inexhaustible force. The model also incorporates modern physics theories that include relativity, the conservation of energy, quantum mechanics, and multiverse geometry. For example, creation out of nothing and divine intervention are subject (...)
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9. Paul Helm (2010). Eternal God: A Study of God Without Time. OUP Oxford.
    Paul Helm presents a new, expanded edition of his much praised 1988 book Eternal God , which defends the view that God exists in timeless eternity. Helm argues that divine timelessness is grounded in the idea of God as creator, and that this alone makes possible a proper account of divine omniscience.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   8 citations  
  10. Daniel Howard-Snyder, Joshua Rasmussen & Andrew Cullison (2013). On Whitcomb's Grounding Argument for Atheism. Faith and Philosophy 30 (2):198-204.
  11. Christoph Jäger (2013). Molinism and Theological Compatibilism. European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 5:71-92.
    In a series of recent papers John Martin Fischer argues that the Molinist solution to the problem of reconciling divine omniscience with human freedom does not offer such a solution at all. Instead, he maintains, Molina simply presupposes theological compatibilism. However, Fischer construes the problem in terms of sempiternalist omniscience, whereas classical Molinism adopts atemporalism. I argue that, moreover, an atemporalist reformulation of Fischer’s argument designed to show that Molinism is not even consistent is unsuccessful as well, since it employs (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12. Bonnie Kent (1986). Divine Omniscience and Omnipotence in Medieval Philosophy. Review of Metaphysics 39 (4):783-784.
  13. Aaron Martin (2004). Reckoning with Ross. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 78:193-208.
    In this paper, I discuss St. Thomas’s explanation of how God knows the possibles—things He could create but never does create. Thomas’s full explanationincludes a discussion of the nature of possibility, the reality of the possibles, and whether there are divine ideas of the possibles. In this paper, I critique someof James Ross’s positions as he best represents the self-proclaimed “voluntarist” school. I believe that Ross gives Thomas’s texts an incomplete reading on this issue and I seek to provide what (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  14. Damiano Migliorini (2015). Prospettive del molinismo nel dibattito contemporaneo sull’onniscienza divina. Verifiche: Rivista Trimestrale di Scienze Umane 44:71-106.
    Over the past four decades, the issue of the relationship between divine omniscience and human freedom has been the subject of a great debate in the context of Analytic Philosophy of Religion. Many authors have contributed to the debate by formulating some ‘solutions’, taking inspiration from the thought of classical authors (e.g. Boethius, Aquinas, Ockham). One of these, is inspired by Luis de Molina’s thought. The Author, therefore, aims to present the main theoretical thesis of this solution, following the development (...)
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  15. Damiano Migliorini (2014). Dall’incompatibilismo di Pike all’Open Theism: il dibattito sull’onniscienza divina nella filosofia analitica della religione. Rivista di Filosofia 105:273-288.
    The debate on divine omniscience and its compatibility with human freedom, developed after the formulation of the famous Pike’s Argument, has led some authors to formulate a new form of theism called open theism. The main thesis of this theory deals with the redefinition of the attribute of omniscience – meant as dynamic – and other divine attributes, such as eternity and immutability. The core of the theory, however, lies in the assumption, in metaphysical terms, of the affirmation of the (...)
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  16. Damiano Migliorini (2014). Trinità per filosofi? Lineamenti di un Teismo Trinitario. Studia Patavina 61:471-482.
    The philosophical thought of Massimo Cacciari and the conceptual issues of « open theism » are two speculative routes apparently very distant from each other. This contribution highlights the common goal in their going to the root of philosophic problems in order to seek an answer: they think of a divine way of becoming explaining the reason of both the reality of the world and the paradoxical reality of human freedom. The two routes tend to converge and recover concepts pertaining (...)
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  17. Peter Milne (2007). Omniscient Beings Are Dialetheists. Analysis 67 (295):250–251.
  18. Patrick Todd (2014). Against Limited Foreknowledge. Philosophia 42 (2):523-538.
    Theological fatalists contend that if God knows everything, then no human action is free, and that since God does know everything, no human action is free. One reply to such arguments that has become popular recently— a way favored by William Hasker and Peter van Inwagen—agrees that if God knows everything, no human action is free. The distinctive response of these philosophers is simply to say that therefore God does not know everything. On this view, what the fatalist arguments in (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  19. Daniel von Wachter (2011). Belief, Knowledge, and Omniscience. Review Of: Paul Weingartner: Omniscience. Grazer Philosophische Studien 83:267--279.
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography