David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philo 9 (1):62-72 (2006)
In this paper I present two new arguments against the possibility of an omniscient being. My new arguments invoke considerations of cardinality and resemble several arguments originally presented by Patrick Grim. Like Grim, I give reasons to believe that there must be more objects in the universe than there are beliefs. However, my arguments will rely on certain mereological claims, namely that Classical Extensional Mereology is necessarily true of the part-whole relation. My first argument is an instance of a problem first noted by Gideon Rosen and requires an additional assumption about the mereological structure of certain beliefs. That assumption is that an omniscient being’s beliefs are mereological simples. However, this assumption is dropped when I present my second argument. Thus, I hope to show that if Classical Extensional Mereology is true of the part-whole relation, there cannot be an omniscient being
|Keywords||Mereology Unrestricted Composition Omniscience God Propositions|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Gabriel Uzquiano (2014). Mereology and Modality. In Shieva Kleinschmidt (ed.), Mereology and Location. Oxford University Press 33-56.
Alexander R. Pruss (2003). Post's Critiques of Omniscience and of Talk of All True Propositions. Philo 6 (1):49-58.
Dennis Whitcomb (2012). Grounding and Omniscience. In Jon Kvanvig (ed.), Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion Vol. 4. OUP
Tobias Hansson Wahlberg (2009). Is Phosphorus Hesperus? Axiomathes 19 (1):101-102.
Aaron J. Cotnoir (2010). Anti-Symmetry and Non-Extensional Mereology. Philosophical Quarterly 60 (239):396-405.
Daniel Howard-Snyder, Joshua Rasmussen & Andrew Cullison (2013). On Whitcomb's Grounding Argument for Atheism. Faith and Philosophy 30 (2):198-204.
Nikk Effingham, Debunking a Mereological Myth: If Composition as Identity is True, Universalism Need Not Be.
Noreen E. Johnson (2007). Divine Omnipotence and Divine Omniscience: A Reply to Michael Martin. Sophia 46 (1):69-73.
Sean Walsh (2012). Modal Mereology and Modal Supervenience. Philosophical Studies 159 (1):1-20.
D. H. Mellor (2006). Wholes and Parts: The Limits of Composition. South African Journal of Philosophy 25 (2):138-145.
Nathaniel Goldberg (2003). Possibly V. Actually the Case: Davidson's Omniscient Interpreter at Twenty. [REVIEW] Acta Analytica 18 (1-2):143-160.
Maureen Donnelly (2011). Using Mereological Principles to Support Metaphysics. Philosophical Quarterly 61 (243):225-246.
Yujin Nagasawa (2008). A New Defence of Anselmian Theism. Philosophical Quarterly 58 (233):577-596.
Paul Hovda (2013). Tensed Mereology. Journal of Philosophical Logic 42 (2):241-283.
Stephan Torre (2006). De Se Knowledge and the Possibility of an Omniscient Being. Faith and Philosophy 23 (2):191-200.
Added to index2011-01-09
Total downloads35 ( #112,191 of 1,792,816 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #282,371 of 1,792,816 )
How can I increase my downloads?