Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Is Scientific Modeling an Indirect Methodology?Karlis Podnieks - 2009 - The Reasoner 3 (1):4-5.
    If we consider modeling not as a heap of contingent structures, but (where possible) as evolving coordinated systems of models, then we can reasonably explain as "direct representations" even some very complicated model-based cognitive situations. Scientific modeling is not as indirect as it may seem. "Direct theorizing" comes later, as the result of a successful model evolution.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Two Omnipotent Beings?Ciro De Florio & Aldo Frigerio - 2015 - Philosophia 43 (2):309-324.
    The idea of omnipotence plays a crucial role within the framework of classical theism. God is typically considered omnipotent, that is, able to perform any action. Sometimes, it is said that for God there is no difference between will and action; everything he wishes happens. However, as one reflects on the concept of omnipotence, some rather complex questions arise; the range of God’s possible “actions” is not clear. What are the boundaries of the power of an omnipotent being, if these (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • There cannot be two omnipotent beings.James Baillie & Jason Hagen - 2008 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 64 (1):21 - 33.
    We argue that there is no metaphysically possible world with two or more omnipotent beings, due to the potential for conflicts of will between them. We reject the objection that omnipotent beings could exist in the same world when their wills could not conflict. We then turn to Alfred Mele and M.P. Smith’s argument that two coexisting beings could remain omnipotent even if, on some occasions, their wills cancel each other out so that neither can bring about what they intend. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Two Omnipotent Beings?Aldo Frigerio & Ciro Florio - 2015 - Philosophia 43 (2):309-324.
    The idea of omnipotence plays a crucial role within the framework of classical theism. God is typically considered omnipotent, that is, able to perform any action. Sometimes, it is said that for God there is no difference between will and action; everything he wishes happens. However, as one reflects on the concept of omnipotence, some rather complex questions arise; the range of God’s possible “actions” is not clear. What are the boundaries of the power of an omnipotent being, if these (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • The new paradox of the stone revisited.Erik J. Wielenberg - 2001 - Faith and Philosophy 18 (2):261-268.
    Alfred Mele and M.P. Smith have presented a puzzle about omnipotence which they call “the new paradox of the stone.” They have also proposed a solution to this puzzle. I briefly present their puzzle and their proposed solution and argue that their proposed solution is unsatisfactory. I further argue that if their suggested solution to the original paradox of the stone succeeds, a similar solution also solves the new paradox of the stone.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Omnipotence and the Vicious Circle Principle.Majid Amini - 2009 - Forum Philosophicum: International Journal for Philosophy 14 (2):247-258.
    The classical paradox of the stone, namely, whether an omnipotent being can create a stone that the being itself cannot lift is traditionally circumvented by a response propounded by Thomas Aquinas, that even omnipotent beings cannot accomplish the logically impossible. However, in their paper “The New Paradox of the Stone,” Alfred R. Mele and M.P. Smith attempt to reinstate the paradox without falling foul of the Thomistic logical constraint. According to Mele and Smith, instead of interpreting the paradox as posing (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark