Omniscience and Eternity: A Reply to Craig

Faith and Philosophy 18 (3):369-376 (2001)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Craig claims that my treatment of temporal indexicals such as ‘now’ is inadequate, and that my theory gives no general account of tense. Craig’s argument misunderstands the theory of indexicals I give, and I show how to extend the theory to give a general account of tense.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,779

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

Anti-Molinism is Undefeated!William Hasker - 2000 - Faith and Philosophy 17 (1):126-131.
Time, tense, truth.Katalin Farkas - 2008 - Synthese 160 (2):269 - 284.
Tensed Belief.Vasilis Tsompanidis - 2011 - Dissertation, University of California Santa Barbara
Rejoinder to William Lane Craig.David B. Myers - 2003 - Religious Studies 39 (4):427-430.
Smith on Indexicals.Daniel Asher Krasner - 2006 - Synthese 153 (1):49-67.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
13 (#1,039,776)

6 months
4 (#1,004,582)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Jonathan L. Kvanvig
Washington University in St. Louis

Citations of this work

The divine attributes.Nicholas Everitt - 2010 - Philosophy Compass 5 (1):78-90.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Omniscience, Tensed Facts, and Divine Eternity.William Lane Craig - 2000 - Faith and Philosophy 17 (2):225-241.
Omniscience, Tensed Facts, and Divine Eternity.William Lane Craig - 2000 - Faith and Philosophy 17 (2):227--228.
Omniscience and Eternity.Jonathan L. Kvanvig - 2001 - Faith and Philosophy 18 (3):369-376.

Add more references