Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In constructive mathematics, the limited principle of omniscience (LPO) and the lesser limited principle of omniscience (LLPO) are axioms that are nonconstructive but are weaker than the full law of the excluded middle. They are used to gauge the amount of nonconstructivity required for an argument, as in constructive reverse mathematics.
It provides a challenge to the knowability thesis, which states that every truth is, in principle, knowable. The paradox states that this assumption implies the omniscience principle, which asserts that every truth is known. Essentially, Fitch's paradox asserts that the existence of an unknown truth is unknowable.
This work is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU Affero General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of the License, or any later version. This work is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but without any warranty; without even the implied ...
%PDF-1.4 %âãÏÓ 9 0 obj > endobj xref 9 15 0000000016 00000 n 0000000786 00000 n 0000000864 00000 n 0000000993 00000 n 0000001111 00000 n 0000001552 00000 n 0000001973 00000 n 0000002429 00000 n 0000002506 00000 n 0000002752 00000 n 0000002992 00000 n 0000003232 00000 n 0000005400 00000 n 0000005789 00000 n 0000000596 00000 n trailer ...
In logic, the law of excluded middle or the principle of excluded middle states that for every proposition, either this proposition or its negation is true. [1] [2] It is one of the three laws of thought, along with the law of noncontradiction, and the law of identity; however, no system of logic is built on just these laws, and none of these laws provides inference rules, such as modus ponens ...
Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles. For example, that a genus was not predicable of the species, or that lines drawn from the centre ...
Epicurus was not an atheist, although he rejected the idea of a god concerned with human affairs; followers of Epicureanism denied the idea that there was no god. While the conception of a supreme, happy and blessed god was the most popular during his time, Epicurus rejected such a notion, as he considered it too heavy a burden for a god to have to worry about all the problems in the world.
In addition to Plantinga's free-will defense, there are other arguments purporting to undermine or disprove the logical argument from evil. [13] Plantinga's free-will defense is the best known of these responses at least in part because of his thoroughness in describing and addressing the relevant questions and issues in God, Freedom, and Evil.