David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Analysis 72 (4):746-748 (2012)
A central argument for the view that God's necessary omniscience [( Bgf p )] precludes freewill is unsound, because the necessity of the consequence is not the necessity of the consequent, and nor is Bgf true. God's belief in some particular proposition f about what I will do is not necessary, as I might do something that makes ~ f true. Fischer and Tognazzini claim that this counterargument argument assumes that I must freely do the something that makes f true. But plainly it doesn't. All that it assumes is that I will do the something that makes f true. It makes no difference whether I do that thing unfreely, or "deterministicall". The argument does not assume the existence of a case of freewill in the face of divine foreknowledge, but instead considers the necessity of God's belief in some particular designated proposition f. The argument does not depend, as Fischer and Tognazzini suppose, on whether God's knowledge is a function of the facts (omniscience) or vice versa (infallibility)
|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
Storrs McCall (2011). The Supervenience of Truth: Freewill and Omniscience. Analysis 71 (3):501-506.
Trenton Merricks (2009). Truth and Freedom. Philosophical Review 118 (1):29-57.
Citations of this work BETA
J. M. Fischer & N. A. Tognazzini (2013). The Logic of Theological Incompatibilism: A Reply to Westphal. Analysis 73 (1):46-48.
Similar books and articles
Norman M. Swartz, Foreknowledge and Free Will. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Brian Davies (2005). Thoughts About God. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 79:21-27.
J. Westphal (2011). The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Freewill. Analysis 71 (2):246-252.
Anthony Brueckner (2000). On an Attempt to Demonstrate the Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom. Faith and Philosophy 17 (1):132-134.
Jeff Speaks (2011). Foreknowledge, Evil, and Compatibility Arguments. Faith and Philosophy 28 (3):269-293.
Benjamin H. Arbour (2013). Future Freedom and the Fixity of Truth: Closing the Road to Limited Foreknowledge Open Theism. [REVIEW] International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 73 (3):189-207.
William Lane Craig (1987). Divine Foreknowledge and Newcomb's Paradox. Philosophia 17 (3):331-350.
John Sanders (1997). Why Simple Foreknowledge Offers No More Providential Control Than the Openness of God. Faith and Philosophy 14 (1):26-40.
Kevin Timpe (2007). Truth-Making and Divine Eternity. Religious Studies 43 (3):299 - 315.
John Sanders (1997). ``Why Simple Foreknowledge Offers No More Providential Control Than the Openness of God&Quot. Faith and Philosophy 14 (1):26-40.
Charles T. Hughes (1997). Belief, Foreknowledge, and Theological Fatalism. Faith and Philosophy 14 (3):378-387.
Vance G. Morgan (1994). Foreknowledge and Human Freedom in Augustine. Journal of Philosophical Research 19:223-242.
Michael V. Griffin (2012). Leibniz, God and Necessity. Cambridge University Press.
Jason Wyckoff (2010). On the Incompatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom. Sophia 49 (3):333-41.
Added to index2012-09-11
Total downloads22 ( #77,523 of 1,100,740 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #43,955 of 1,100,740 )
How can I increase my downloads?