The Aloneness Argument fails
Schmid and Mullins present what they call ‘the Aloneness Argument’ for the inconsistency of four theses from classical theism: the doctrine of divine simplicity, the doctrine of divine omniscience, the claim that God is free to create or not to create, and the claim that it is possible that God and...
| Authors: | ; |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Cambridge Univ. Press
2023
|
| In: |
Religious studies
Year: 2023, Volume: 59, Issue: 1, Pages: 139-155 |
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
Theism
/ Omniscience
/ Simplicity of God
|
| RelBib Classification: | AB Philosophy of religion; criticism of religion; atheism NBC Doctrine of God |
| Further subjects: | B
divine omniscience
B Divine Simplicity B Divine Freedom B extrinsic properties B extrinsic predications B Aloneness Argument B Classical Theism |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | Schmid and Mullins present what they call ‘the Aloneness Argument’ for the inconsistency of four theses from classical theism: the doctrine of divine simplicity, the doctrine of divine omniscience, the claim that God is free to create or not to create, and the claim that it is possible that God and nothing but God exist. We deny that they have shown an inconsistency between these theses. We maintain that, depending on how certain premises are interpreted, one or another premise is false. We also offer a positive proposal regarding a simple God's knowledge that he is alone in a world where he doesn't create anything. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1469-901X |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Religious studies
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1017/S0034412521000433 |