Abstract
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.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Philosophy,Religious studies
Cited by
8 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Molinism;Divine Omniscience and Human Free Will;2019
2. Counterfactuals of divine freedom;International Journal for Philosophy of Religion;2015-09-21
3. Against deliberation restrictions;Religious Studies;2014-03-28
4. The freedom of Christ and the problem of deliberation;International Journal for Philosophy of Religion;2014-02-20
5. The freedom of Christ and explanatory priority;Religious Studies;2013-08-07