What God only knows: a reply to Rob Lovering

Religious Studies 50 (2):245-254 (2014)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Rob Lovering has recently argued that God is not omniscient on the grounds that (1) in order to be omniscient a subject must not only know all truths always but also know what it's like not to know a truth, and (2) God cannot fulfil both of these requirements. I show that Lovering's argument is unsuccessful since he inadequately supports (1) and (2), and since there are several serious doubts about (2). I also show that Lovering does not otherwise indicate that God is not maximally great

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,867

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

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-10-25

Downloads
100 (#170,849)

6 months
21 (#166,095)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Matthew Frise
Milwaukee School of Engineering

References found in this work

Philosophical papers.David Kellogg Lewis - 1983 - New York: Oxford University Press.
Phenomenal knowledge.Earl Conee - 1994 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 72 (2):136-150.
Methodology and the nature of knowing how.Michael Devitt - 2011 - Journal of Philosophy 108 (4):205-218.
Postscript to "mad pain and Martian pain".David K. Lewis - 1983 - Philosophical Papers 12:122-133.

View all 11 references / Add more references