David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Analysis 71 (2):246-252 (2011)
On Friday God knew everything, including f, a proposition about what Jones would do on Monday; we can write the time-indexed proposition that on Friday God believed f as Bgf. If Jones does not do the thing that makes f true, then the resulting state of affairs will be ∼f. So on Monday, before a certain time – ‘ t time’ – Jones has it in his power to bring it about that ∼f. It seems to follow that on Monday Jones has it in his power to bring it about that on Friday God believed something false. Yet this is impossible, as Bgp ⊃ p . But if f is false – if Jones makes it so on Monday – then so is Bgf, and God is not infallible. So either Jones cannot not do the thing that makes f true, and he has no freewill, or God is not infallible. The traditional responses to this dilemma are subtle, time-honoured and, as I see it, almost completely unconvincing. According to Linda Zagzebski , there are five of them: the Ockhamist response that God’s Friday belief is a so-called ‘soft’ fact, itself a problematic notion; the confused Molinist claim that on Friday God has something called ‘middle knowledge’ , so that God knows what Jones would do, but does not will it or know what Jones would do if … ); and the more sensible but still perplexing solution of Boethius’s that God’s knowing is not in time, so that the time-indexed proposition Bgf is not true. (How does it help to move the knowing that is said to determine our actions from the past to the timeless? It seems to …
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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
Joseph K. Campbell (2010). Incompatibilism and Fatalism: Reply to Loss. Analysis 70 (1):71-76.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
J. Westphal (2012). The Logic of the Compatibility of God's Foreknowledge and Human Freewill. Analysis 72 (4):746-748.
Charles T. Hughes (1997). Belief, Foreknowledge, and Theological Fatalism. Faith and Philosophy 14 (3):378-387.
Ted A. Warfield (2000). On Freedom and Foreknowledge. Faith and Philosophy 17 (2):255-259.
Christopher J. Kosciuk, Human Freedom in a World Full of Providence: An Ockhamist-Molinist Account of the Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Creaturely Free Will.
Ted A. Warfield (2000). ``On Freedom and Foreknowledge: A Reply to Two Critics&Quot. Faith and Philosophy 17 (2):255-259.
Michael Tooley (2010). Time, Truth, Actuality, and Causation: On the Impossibility of Divine Foreknowledge. European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 2 (1):143 - 163.
Michael D. Robinson (2000). Why Divine Foreknowledge? Religious Studies 36 (3):251-275.
William Lane Craig (1987). Divine Foreknowledge and Newcomb's Paradox. Philosophia 17 (3):331-350.
Jason Wyckoff (2010). On the Incompatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom. Sophia 49 (3):333-41.
David P. Hunt (1996). The Compatibility of Omniscience and Intentional Action: A Reply to Tomis Kapitan. Religious Studies 32 (1):49 - 60.
L. Nathan Oaklander (1995). Time and Foreknowledge: A Critique of Zagzebski. Religious Studies 31 (1):101 - 103.
Barry A. David (2001). Divine Foreknowledge in De Civitate Dei 5.9. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 75 (4):479-495.
Endre Begby (2005). Leibniz on Determinism and Divine Foreknowledge. Studia Leibnitiana 37 (1):83-98.
Jeff Speaks (2011). Foreknowledge, Evil, and Compatibility Arguments. Faith and Philosophy 28 (3):269-293.
Added to index2011-03-12
Total downloads84 ( #18,436 of 1,413,361 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #94,237 of 1,413,361 )
How can I increase my downloads?