Should God believe the Liar? A non-dialetheist paraconsistent approach to God’s Omniscience

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: CARDOSO,GUILHERME ARAÚJO
Data de Publicação: 2021
Outros Autores: MIRANDA,SÉRGIO RICARDO NEVES DE
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Manuscrito (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-60452021000400518
Resumo: Abstract In this paper, we discuss a family of arguments that show the inconsistency of the concept of omniscience, which is one of the central attributes of the theistic God. We introduce three member of this family: Grim’s Divine Liar Paradox, Milne’s Paradox and our own Divine Curry. They can be seen as theological counterparts of well-known semantic paradoxes. We argue that the very simple dialetheist response to these paradoxes doesn’t work well and then introduce our own response based on a framework that we call Logic of Impossible Truths (LIT). LIT is a non-dialetheist paraconsistent logic designed to represent divine ominiscience and to preserve the transparency of the truth predicate and which semantics rests on the concept of situation. Since some rules of classical logic are not valid in LIT, we are in a position to block the derivation of the paradoxes. Thus, LIT offers a way out of the dilemma of accepting that there are true contradictions (dialetheism) or giving up the idea that there is an all-powerful, omniscient and perfectly good being (atheism).
id UNICAMP-17_01197f95b06954dc8bb80b8f10921634
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S0100-60452021000400518
network_acronym_str UNICAMP-17
network_name_str Manuscrito (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Should God believe the Liar? A non-dialetheist paraconsistent approach to God’s OmniscienceParadoxesOmnscienceTruthDialetheismSituation SemanticsAbstract In this paper, we discuss a family of arguments that show the inconsistency of the concept of omniscience, which is one of the central attributes of the theistic God. We introduce three member of this family: Grim’s Divine Liar Paradox, Milne’s Paradox and our own Divine Curry. They can be seen as theological counterparts of well-known semantic paradoxes. We argue that the very simple dialetheist response to these paradoxes doesn’t work well and then introduce our own response based on a framework that we call Logic of Impossible Truths (LIT). LIT is a non-dialetheist paraconsistent logic designed to represent divine ominiscience and to preserve the transparency of the truth predicate and which semantics rests on the concept of situation. Since some rules of classical logic are not valid in LIT, we are in a position to block the derivation of the paradoxes. Thus, LIT offers a way out of the dilemma of accepting that there are true contradictions (dialetheism) or giving up the idea that there is an all-powerful, omniscient and perfectly good being (atheism).UNICAMP - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Centro de Lógica, Epistemologia e História da Ciência2021-12-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-60452021000400518Manuscrito v.44 n.4 2021reponame:Manuscrito (Online)instname:Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)instacron:UNICAMP10.1590/0100-6045.2021.v44n4.gcinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessCARDOSO,GUILHERME ARAÚJOMIRANDA,SÉRGIO RICARDO NEVES DEeng2021-12-08T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0100-60452021000400518Revistahttp://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_serial&pid=0100-6045&lng=pt&nrm=isoPUBhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phpmwrigley@cle.unicamp.br|| dascal@spinoza.tau.ac.il||publicacoes@cle.unicamp.br2317-630X0100-6045opendoar:2021-12-08T00:00Manuscrito (Online) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Should God believe the Liar? A non-dialetheist paraconsistent approach to God’s Omniscience
title Should God believe the Liar? A non-dialetheist paraconsistent approach to God’s Omniscience
spellingShingle Should God believe the Liar? A non-dialetheist paraconsistent approach to God’s Omniscience
CARDOSO,GUILHERME ARAÚJO
Paradoxes
Omnscience
Truth
Dialetheism
Situation Semantics
title_short Should God believe the Liar? A non-dialetheist paraconsistent approach to God’s Omniscience
title_full Should God believe the Liar? A non-dialetheist paraconsistent approach to God’s Omniscience
title_fullStr Should God believe the Liar? A non-dialetheist paraconsistent approach to God’s Omniscience
title_full_unstemmed Should God believe the Liar? A non-dialetheist paraconsistent approach to God’s Omniscience
title_sort Should God believe the Liar? A non-dialetheist paraconsistent approach to God’s Omniscience
author CARDOSO,GUILHERME ARAÚJO
author_facet CARDOSO,GUILHERME ARAÚJO
MIRANDA,SÉRGIO RICARDO NEVES DE
author_role author
author2 MIRANDA,SÉRGIO RICARDO NEVES DE
author2_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv CARDOSO,GUILHERME ARAÚJO
MIRANDA,SÉRGIO RICARDO NEVES DE
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Paradoxes
Omnscience
Truth
Dialetheism
Situation Semantics
topic Paradoxes
Omnscience
Truth
Dialetheism
Situation Semantics
description Abstract In this paper, we discuss a family of arguments that show the inconsistency of the concept of omniscience, which is one of the central attributes of the theistic God. We introduce three member of this family: Grim’s Divine Liar Paradox, Milne’s Paradox and our own Divine Curry. They can be seen as theological counterparts of well-known semantic paradoxes. We argue that the very simple dialetheist response to these paradoxes doesn’t work well and then introduce our own response based on a framework that we call Logic of Impossible Truths (LIT). LIT is a non-dialetheist paraconsistent logic designed to represent divine ominiscience and to preserve the transparency of the truth predicate and which semantics rests on the concept of situation. Since some rules of classical logic are not valid in LIT, we are in a position to block the derivation of the paradoxes. Thus, LIT offers a way out of the dilemma of accepting that there are true contradictions (dialetheism) or giving up the idea that there is an all-powerful, omniscient and perfectly good being (atheism).
publishDate 2021
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2021-12-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-60452021000400518
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-60452021000400518
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/0100-6045.2021.v44n4.gc
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv UNICAMP - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Centro de Lógica, Epistemologia e História da Ciência
publisher.none.fl_str_mv UNICAMP - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Centro de Lógica, Epistemologia e História da Ciência
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Manuscrito v.44 n.4 2021
reponame:Manuscrito (Online)
instname:Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)
instacron:UNICAMP
instname_str Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)
instacron_str UNICAMP
institution UNICAMP
reponame_str Manuscrito (Online)
collection Manuscrito (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Manuscrito (Online) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv mwrigley@cle.unicamp.br|| dascal@spinoza.tau.ac.il||publicacoes@cle.unicamp.br
_version_ 1748950066213683200