Philosophical Quarterly 24 (95):156-159 (1974)
|Abstract||It is the aim of this paper to show that [the theological argument from Divine omniscience] is not more than a needlessly (and confusingly) elaborate version of the argument for fatalism discussed by Aristotle in de Interpretatione 9, which, since its sole premise is the Principle of Bivalence, may conveniently be called the logical argument for fatalism. If this is right, if the theological premisses of the theological argument can be shown to be strictly irrelevant to the fatalist conclusion, then it follows that it is pointless to try to avoid fatalism by modification of those theological premisses.|
|Keywords||Fatalism Theology Aristotle|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Alex Blum (2005). On the Cannot of Infallibility. Sophia 44 (1).
Robert C. Solomon (2003). On Fate and Fatalism. Philosophy East and West 53 (4):435-454.
Susan Haack (1975). On "on Theological Fatalism Again" Again. Philosophical Quarterly 25 (99):159-161.
David Widerker (2000). ``Theological Fatalism and Frankfurt Counterexamples to the Principle of Alternate Possibilities&Quot. Faith and Philosophy 17 (2):249-254.
David Buller (1995). On the 'Standard' Argument for Fatalism. Philosophical Papers 24 (2):111-125.
Ted A. Warfield & Alicia Finch (1999). Fatalism: Logical and Theological. Faith and Philosophy 16 (2):233-238.
Charles T. Hughes (1997). Belief, Foreknowledge, and Theological Fatalism. Faith and Philosophy 14 (3):378-387.
Richard L. Purtill (1988). Fatalism and the Omnitemporality of Truth. Faith and Philosophy 5 (2):185-192.
Richard Purtill (1988). ``Fatalism and the Omnitemporality of Truth&Quot. Faith and Philosophy 5 (2):185-192.
Vladimir Marko (2011). Looking for the Lazy Argument Candidates. Organon F 18 (3 & 4):363-383; 447-474.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads30 ( #40,877 of 549,124 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,361 of 549,124 )
How can I increase my downloads?