Philosophy and Theology 17 (1/2):107-120 (2005)
|Abstract||The ‘middle knowledge’ doctrine salvages free will and divine omniscience by contending that God knows what agents will freely choose under any possible circumstances. I argue, however, that the Leibnizian problem of divine knowledge of human evil is best resolved by applying a Theodicy II distinction between determined, foreseen, and resolved action. This move eliminates deference to middle knowledge. Contingent action is indeed free, but not all action is contingent, and so not all action is free. For Leibniz, then, God’s knowledge extends to the sum pattern of determinates for an act, rather than to contingent events|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Steven B. Cowan (2003). The Grounding Objection to Middle Knowledge Revisited. Religious Studies 39 (1):93-102.
Michael J. Cholbi (2003). Contingency and Divine Knowledge in Ockham. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 77 (1):81-91.
David Basinger (1992). Divine Omniscience and the Soteriological Problem of Evil Is the Type of Knowledge God Possesses Relevant? Religious Studies 28 (1):1 - 18.
Douglas P. Lackey (1984). Divine Omniscience and Human Privacy. Philosophy Research Archives 10:383-391.
Jean-Pascal Anfray (2002). God's Decrees and Middle Knowledge. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 76 (4):647-670.
Christia Mercer (2002). Leibniz on Knowledge and God. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 76 (4):531-550.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads11 ( #107,331 of 722,745 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #25,873 of 722,745 )
How can I increase my downloads?