God of the Gaps: a neglected reply to God’s stone problem

Jeffrey C Beall; Aaron Cotnoir

doi:10.1093/analys/anx069

God of the Gaps: a neglected reply to God’s stone problem

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

Traditional 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.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	681–689
Number of pages	9
Journal	Analysis
Volume	77
Issue number	4
Early online date	27 Jun 2017
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/anx069
Publication status	Published - 1 Oct 2017

Keywords

Theism
Omnipotence
Omniscience
Paradoxgaps
Paracomplete
Subclassical
Logic

Access to Document

10.1093/analys/anx069

God-of-gaps
© 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/10.1080/00048402.2017.1384846
Accepted author manuscript, 245 KB

Cite this

@article{377f9560975d4a8da77658fda1525c36,

title = "God of the Gaps: a neglected reply to God{\textquoteright}s stone problem",

abstract = "Traditional 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 {\textquoteleft}gappy{\textquoteright} framework for addressing this puzzle. We assume familiarity with the proposed (subclassical) logic but an appendix is offered as a brief review.",

keywords = "Theism, Omnipotence, Omniscience, Paradoxgaps, Paracomplete, Subclassical, Logic",

author = "Beall, {Jeffrey C} and Aaron Cotnoir",

year = "2017",

month = oct,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1093/analys/anx069",

language = "English",

volume = "77",

pages = "681–689",

journal = "Analysis",

issn = "0003-2638",

publisher = "Oxford University Press",

number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - God of the Gaps

T2 - a neglected reply to God’s stone problem

AU - Beall, Jeffrey C

AU - Cotnoir, Aaron

PY - 2017/10/1

Y1 - 2017/10/1

N2 - Traditional 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.

AB - Traditional 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.

KW - Theism

KW - Omnipotence

KW - Omniscience

KW - Paradoxgaps

KW - Paracomplete

KW - Subclassical

KW - Logic

U2 - 10.1093/analys/anx069

DO - 10.1093/analys/anx069

M3 - Article

SN - 0003-2638

VL - 77

SP - 681

EP - 689

JO - Analysis

JF - Analysis

IS - 4

ER -

God of the Gaps: a neglected reply to God’s stone problem

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this