Religious Studies 32 (1):49 - 60 (1996)
The paper that follows continues a discussion with Tomis Kapitan in the pages of this journal over the compatibility of divine agency with divine foreknowledge. I had earlier argued against two premises in Kapitan's case for omniscient impotence: (i) that intentionally A-ing presupposes prior acquisition of the intention to A, and (ii) that acquiring the intention to A presupposes prior ignorance whether one will A. In response to my criticisms, Kapitan has recently offered new defences for these two premises. I show in reply why neither defence succeeds in rehabilitating the case against omniscient agency.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
The Freedom of Christ and the Problem of Deliberation.Timothy Pawl - 2014 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 75 (3):233-247.
Similar books and articles
Acting and the Open Future: A Brief Rejoinder to David Hunt.Tomis Kapitan - 1997 - Religious Studies 33 (3):287-292.
The Incompatibility of Omniscience and Intentional Action: A Reply to David P. Hunt.Tomis Kapitan - 1994 - Religious Studies 30 (1):55 - 66.
Lucey's Agnosticism: The Believer's Reply. [REVIEW]Tomis Kapitan - 1985 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 18 (1/2):87 - 90.
Added to index2011-05-29
Total downloads6 ( #555,306 of 2,163,655 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #188,897 of 2,163,655 )
How can I increase my downloads?