Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-5xszh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T08:15:35.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2004

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

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.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2004 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)