Against God of the truth-value gaps

IF 1.1 1区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY ANALYSIS Pub Date : 2024-04-25 DOI:10.1093/analys/anad090
T. Parent
{"title":"Against God of the truth-value gaps","authors":"T. Parent","doi":"10.1093/analys/anad090","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Beall and Cotnoir propose that ‘God can create an unliftable stone’ is a truth-value gap (neither true nor false). However, this yields a revenge paradox on whether God can eschew gaps. Can God avoid gappy ascriptions of power? Either way, God’s power seems to have limits. In response, it may be said that ascribing God the power to avoid gaps is itself gappy – it concerns a power that God neither has nor lacks. Yet this ends up being inconsistent, for it implies that God definitely lacks that power. Following Aquinas, perhaps Beall and Cotnoir could accept this lack and still uphold omnipotence, suggesting that the power to avoid gaps is impossible for God. Yet the Aquinian stratagem is enough to block the original paradox, which saps the motivation to proffer truth-value gaps in addition. I conclude that the gappy solution is either inadequate or insufficiently motivated.","PeriodicalId":47773,"journal":{"name":"ANALYSIS","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ANALYSIS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/anad090","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Beall and Cotnoir propose that ‘God can create an unliftable stone’ is a truth-value gap (neither true nor false). However, this yields a revenge paradox on whether God can eschew gaps. Can God avoid gappy ascriptions of power? Either way, God’s power seems to have limits. In response, it may be said that ascribing God the power to avoid gaps is itself gappy – it concerns a power that God neither has nor lacks. Yet this ends up being inconsistent, for it implies that God definitely lacks that power. Following Aquinas, perhaps Beall and Cotnoir could accept this lack and still uphold omnipotence, suggesting that the power to avoid gaps is impossible for God. Yet the Aquinian stratagem is enough to block the original paradox, which saps the motivation to proffer truth-value gaps in addition. I conclude that the gappy solution is either inadequate or insufficiently motivated.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
反对真值差距之神
Beall 和 Cotnoir 提出,"上帝可以创造一块无法搬动的石头 "是一个真值空白(非真非假)。然而,这就产生了一个报复性悖论,即上帝能否避免差距。上帝能否避免对力量的空洞描述?无论如何,上帝的力量似乎都是有限的。对此,有人可能会说,赋予上帝回避差距的能力本身就是谬误--它涉及到上帝既不拥有也不缺乏的一种能力。然而,这最终是不一致的,因为它意味着上帝肯定缺乏这种能力。按照阿奎那的说法,也许比厄尔和科特努瓦可以接受这种缺乏,但仍然坚持全能,认为上帝不可能有避免间隙的能力。然而,阿奎那的策略足以阻挡原有的悖论,这就失去了另外提出真值空白的动力。我的结论是,"空白 "解决方案要么不充分,要么动机不足。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
12.50%
发文量
68
期刊介绍: Analysis is the most established and esteemed forum in which to publish short discussions of topics in philosophy. Articles published in Analysis lend themselves to the presentation of cogent but brief arguments for substantive conclusions, and often give rise to discussions which continue over several interchanges. A wide range of topics are covered including: philosophical logic and philosophy of language, metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of mind, and moral philosophy.
期刊最新文献
A puzzle about weak belief On the dilemma for partial subjunctive supposition Fragility and strength Alan Author strikes again: more on confirming conjunctions of disconfirmed hypotheses Correction to: Primitive conditional probabilities, subset relations and comparative regularity
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1