The Analogy Argument for a Limited Acccount of Omniscience
International Philosophical Quarterly 29 (2):129-138 (1989)
| Abstract | IN COMPARISON with other doctrines Cthe doctrine of omnipotence, for example Cthe proper formulation of the doctrine of omniscience has not seemed especially problematic. Once we accept the contemporary wisdom that knowledge is knowledge of truths, the formulation of the traditional doctrine seems straightforward: to be omniscient is just to know all truths. What has seemed problematic, rather, is whether the doctrine is itself true. In particular, many have wondered whether anyone can know the parts of the future not necessitated in any way by the present or past. | |||||||||
| 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: 5,672 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesLaureano Luna (2012). Grim's Arguments Against Omniscience and Indefinite Extensibility. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 72 (2):89-101.
Steven J. Brams (1982). Omniscience and Omnipotence: How They May Help - or Hurt - in a Game. Inquiry 25 (2):217 – 231.
Thomas Metcalf (2004). Omniscience and Maximal Power. Religious Studies 40 (3):289-306.
Rik Peels (forthcoming). Is Omniscience Impossible? Religious Studies.
Robert Bass (2007). Omniscience and the Identification Problem. Florida Philosophical Review 7 (1):78-91.
Daniel Diederich Farmer (2010). Defining Omniscience. Faith and Philosophy 27 (3):306-320.
Jonathan L. Kvanvig (1989). Unknowable Truths and the Doctrine of Omniscience. Journal of the American Academy of Religion 57:485-507.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads3 ( #201,838 of 549,069 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,185 of 549,069 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
