Acting and the open future: A brief rejoinder to David hunt

Religious Studies 33 (3):287-292 (1997)
  Copy   BIBTEX


I have argued that since (i) intentional agency requires intention-acquisition, (ii) intentionacquisition implies a sense of an open future, and (iii) a sense of an open future is incompatible with complete foreknowledge, then (iv) no agent can be omniscient. Alternatively, an omniscient being is omniimpotent.i David Hunt continues to oppose this reasoning, most recently, in Religious Studies 32 (March 1996). It is increasingly clear that the debate turns on larger issues concerning necessity and knowledge, but let me here offer a few comments in defense of my position.



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 74,569

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The Open Past.Ned Markosian - 1995 - Philosophical Studies 79 (1):95 - 105.
Past, Present, Future, and Special Relativity.Nataša Rakić - 1997 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 48 (2):257-280.
The Philosophical Case for Open Theism.Alan Rhoda - 2007 - Philosophia 35 (3-4):301-311.
Probability and the Open Future View.Alexander R. Pruss - 2010 - Faith and Philosophy 27 (2):190-196.


Added to PP

46 (#252,263)

6 months
1 (#418,511)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Tomis Kapitan
Indiana University, Bloomington (PhD)

Citations of this work

The Freedom of Christ and the Problem of Deliberation.Timothy Pawl - 2014 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 75 (3):233-247.
The Freedom of Christ and Explanatory Priority.Timothy Pawl - 2014 - Religious Studies 50 (2):157-173.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references