Religious Studies



Divine guidance and an accidentally necessary future: a response to Hunt


MICHAEL D. ROBINSON a1
a1 Department of Religion and Philosophy, Cumberland College, 7989 College Station Drive, Williamsburg, Kentucky 40769-1331

Article author query
robinson md   [Google Scholar] 
 

Abstract

In his reply to my original essay, David Hunt maintains that I do not discuss how his defence of providentially useful simple foreknowledge violates the Metaphysical Principle. Further, he claims that I try to force him into both affirming and denying the accidental necessity of future events and their role in explaining divine advice-giving. In this response, I attempt to articulate more fully why Hunt's defence of simple foreknowledge implies that dependency loops could unfold. Further, I argue that Hunt's scenario is not tenable, whether one affirms that future events are accidentally necessary or contingent.