Ockhamism vs molinism, round 2: A reply to Warfield: T. Ryan Byerly

Religious Studies 47 (4):503-511 (2011)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Ted Warfield has argued that if Ockhamism and Molinism offer different responses to the problems of foreknowledge and prophecy, it is the Molinist who is in trouble. I show here that this is not so – indeed, things may be quite the reverse

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,611

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

Ockhamism vs Molinism, round 2: a reply to Warfield.T. Ryan Byerly - 2011 - Religious Studies 47 (4):503 - 511.
The philosophical case for open theism.Alan Rhoda - 2007 - Philosophia 35 (3-4):301-311.
Omniscience, Freedom, and Dependence.John Martin Fischer & Neal A. Tognazzini - 2014 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 88 (2):346-367.
I. Applications of Molinism.Tilting At Molinism - 2011 - In Ken Perszyk (ed.), Molinism: The Contemporary Debate. Oxford University Press.
On Behalf of Maverick Molinism.Jonathan L. Kvanvig - 2002 - Faith and Philosophy 19 (3):348-357.
Reconciling Omniscience and Freedom: Ockhamist and Molinist Strategies.Mark Daniel Linville - 1991 - Dissertation, The University of Wisconsin - Madison

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-02-05

Downloads
32 (#504,058)

6 months
5 (#649,144)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

T. Ryan Byerly
University of Sheffield

Citations of this work

Recent Work on Molinism.Ken Perszyk - 2013 - Philosophy Compass 8 (8):755-770.
Foreknowledge, accidental necessity, and uncausability.T. Ryan Byerly - 2014 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 75 (2):137-154.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references