RT Article
T1 On the Infinite God Objection: a Reply to Jacobus Erasmus and Anné Hendrik Verhoef
JF Sophia
VO 55
IS 2
SP 263
OP 272
A1 Loke, Andrew Ter Ern
A2 Erasmus, Jacobus
LA English
PB Springer Netherlands
YR 2016
UL https://www.ixtheo.de/Record/1565868064
AB Erasmus and Verhoef suggest that a promising response to the infinite God objection to the Kalām cosmological argument include showing that (1) abstract objects do not exist; (2) actually infinite knowledge is impossible; and (3) redefining omniscience as (G): for any proposition p, if God consciously thinks about p, God will either accept p as true if and only if p is true, or accept p as false if and only if p is false. I argue that there is insufficient motivation for showing (1) and (2) and that (G) is problematic as a definition of omniscience.
K1 Abstract objects
K1 Infinite God objection
K1 Kalam Cosmological Argument
K1 Omniscience
DO 10.1007/s11841-016-0539-8