Show simple item record

Files in this item

Thumbnail

Item metadata

dc.contributor.authorBeall, Jeffrey C
dc.contributor.authorCotnoir, Aaron
dc.date.accessioned2019-11-07T00:36:20Z
dc.date.available2019-11-07T00:36:20Z
dc.date.issued2017-10-01
dc.identifier.citationBeall , J C & Cotnoir , A 2017 , ' God of the Gaps : a neglected reply to God’s stone problem ' , Analysis , vol. 77 , no. 4 , pp. 681–689 . https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/anx069en
dc.identifier.issn0003-2638
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 251493246
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: 377f9560-975d-4a8d-a776-58fda1525c36
dc.identifier.otherWOS: 000422917400001
dc.identifier.otherScopus: 85042094687
dc.identifier.otherWOS: 000422917400001
dc.identifier.otherORCID: /0000-0003-4528-7570/work/65702590
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10023/18865
dc.description.abstractTraditional monotheism has long faced logical puzzles (omniscience, omnipotence, and more). We argue that such puzzles rest on the assumed logical truth of the Law of Excluded Middle, which we suggest there is little theological reason to accept. By way of illustration we focus on God's alleged stone problem, and present a simple but plausible ‘gappy’ framework for addressing this puzzle. We assume familiarity with the proposed (subclassical) logic but an appendix is offered as a brief review.
dc.format.extent9
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofAnalysisen
dc.rights© 2017 the Authors. This work has been made available online in accordance with the publisher’s policies. This is the author created accepted version manuscript following peer review and as such may differ slightly from the final published version. The final published version of this work is available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00048402.2017.1384846en
dc.subjectTheismen
dc.subjectOmnipotenceen
dc.subjectOmniscienceen
dc.subjectParadoxgapsen
dc.subjectParacompleteen
dc.subjectSubclassicalen
dc.subjectLogicen
dc.subjectBC Logicen
dc.subjectT-NDASen
dc.subject.lccBCen
dc.titleGod of the Gaps : a neglected reply to God’s stone problemen
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.description.versionPostprinten
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews.Philosophyen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews.School of Philosophical, Anthropological and Film Studiesen
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1093/analys/anx069
dc.description.statusPeer revieweden
dc.date.embargoedUntil2019-11-07


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record