Griffin and Pike on Divine Power
Philosophy Research Archives 10:347-352 (1984)
| Abstract | David Griffin and Nelson Pike recently had a spirited discussion on divine power. The essence of the discussion centered around what was labelled Premise X: “It is possible for one actual being's condition to be completely determined by a being or beings other than itself.” Pike maintains that ‘traditional’ theists have affirmed Premise X but denies that this entails that God has all the power there is and thus denies that Premise X can be considered incoherent for this reason. Griffin maintains that traditional theists have as a matter of fact affirmed that God has all the power there is and then argues that, given standard Process metaphysical assumptions, to say that God has all the power there is is incoherent. Griffin succeeds in demonstrating that, given Process assumptions, God cannot determine all of the activities of any human--i.e., all of an individual’s desires, choices and actions. But Pike is primarily interested in whether God could determine all of the bodily behaviors of any given human. And to this question, Griffin gives no response | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,653 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesWesley Morriston (1982). Pike and Hoffman on Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom. Philosophy Research Archives 8:521-529.
Bernard D. Katz (2003). On the Limits of Divine Power. Sophia 42 (1).
Carol P. Christ (2003). She Who Changes: Re-Imagining the Divine in the World. Palgrave Macmillan.
Miriam T. Griffin, Gillian Clark & Tessa Rajak (eds.) (2002). Philosophy and Power in the Graeco-Roman World: Essays in Honour of Miriam Griffin. Oxford University Press.
James H. Fetzer (forthcoming). Evolution and Atheism: Has Griffin Reconciled Science and Religion? Synthese.
S. Matthew Liao (2010). Agency and Human Rights. Journal of Applied Philosophy 27 (1):15-25.
Nelson Pike (1970). God and Timelessness. New York: Schocken.
Chris Tucker (2008). Divine Hiddenness and the Value of Divine–Creature Relationships. Religious Studies 44 (3):269-287.
Nelson Pike (1982). Process Theodicy and the Concept of Power. Process Studies 12 (3):148-167.
Thomas B. Talbott (1988). On the Divine Nature and the Nature of Divine Freedom. Faith and Philosophy 5 (1):3-24.
Hylarie Kochiras (2012). By Ye Divine Arm: God and Substance in De Gravitatione. Religious Studies 2012 (September):1-30.
Robert C. Neville (2008). A Letter of Grateful and Affectionate Response to David Ray Griffin's Whitehead's Radically Different Postmodern Philosophy. Process Studies 37 (1):7-38.
Sherry Deveaux (2003). The Divine Essence and the Conception of God in Spinoza. Synthese 135 (3):329 - 338.
R. Zachary Manis (2011). Could God Do Something Evil? A Molinist Solution to the Problem of Divine Freedom. Faith and Philosophy 28 (2):209-223.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2011-12-02Total downloads2 ( #232,265 of 548,984 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,327 of 548,984 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
