Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5c569c448b-ph4cd Total loading time: 0.218 Render date: 2022-07-04T06:40:05.877Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Theistic consubstantialism and omniscience

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 April 2017

ANDREI A. BUCKAREFF*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, Marist College, Poughkeepsie, New York 12601, USA

Abstract

According to theistic consubstantialism, the universe and God are essentially made of the same stuff. If theistic consubstantialism is correct, then God possesses the essential power to have knowledge de se of the contents of the mind of every conscious being internal to God. If theistic consubstantialism is false, then God lacks this essential property. So either God is essentially corporeal and possesses greater essential epistemic powers than God would have otherwise or God is essentially incorporeal and has a diminished range of essential epistemic powers. In light of this dilemma, I argue that theists should accept theistic consubstantialism.

Type
Original Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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.)

References

Aranyosi, Istvan (2013) God, Mind, and Logical Space: A Revisionary Approach to Divinity (New York: Palgrave Macmillan).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borghini, Andrea & Williams, Neil (2008) ‘A dispositional theory of possibility’, Dialectica, 62, 2141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckareff, Andrei (2016) ‘Theological realism, divine action, and divine location’, in Buckareff, A. & Nagasawa, Y. (eds) Alternative Concepts of God: Essays on the Metaphysics of the Divine (New York: Oxford University Press), 213233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, Kit (1994) ‘Essence and modality’, Philosophical Perspectives, 8, 116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heil, John (2003) From an Ontological Point of View (New York: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heil, John (2012) The Universe as We Find It (New York: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heil, John (2015) ‘Aristotelian supervenience’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 115, 4156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Hud (2009) ‘Omnipresence’, in Rea, M. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Theology (New York: Oxford University Press), 199216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Jonathan (2010) ‘A powers theory of modality: or, how I learned to stop worrying and reject possible worlds’, Philosophical Studies, 151, 227248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jantzen, Grace (1984) God's World, God's Body (Philadelphia: Westminster).Google Scholar
Johnston, Mark (2009) Saving God: Religion after Idolatry (Princeton: Princeton University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Jaegwon (2005) Physicalism, Or Something Near Enough (Princeton: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Leslie, John (2001) Infinite Minds: A Philosophical Cosmology (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Levine, Michael (1994) Pantheism: A Non-Theistic Concept of Deity (New York: Routledge).Google Scholar
Mander, William (2007) ‘Theism, pantheism, and petitionary prayer’, Religious Studies, 43, 317331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, C. B. (2007) The Mind in Nature (New York: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molnar, George (2003) Powers: A Study in Metaphysics (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Nagasawa, Yujin (2003) ‘Divine omniscience and knowledge de se’, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 53, 7382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagasawa, Yujin (2008) God and Phenomenal Consciousness: A Novel Approach to Knowledge Arguments (New York: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagasawa, Yujin (2016) ‘Modal panentheism’, in Buckareff, A. & Nagasawa, Y. (eds) Alternative Concepts of God: Essays in the Metaphysics of the Divine (New York: Oxford University Press), 91105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oakes, Robert (1986) ‘Theistic orthodoxy, theistic consubstantialism, and theistic internalism’, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 19, 177189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oakes, Robert (1997) ‘The divine infinity: can traditional theists justifiably reject pantheism?’, The Monist, 80, 251265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oakes, Robert (2006) ‘Divine omnipresence and maximal immanence: supernaturalism versus pantheism’, American Philosophical Quarterly, 43, 171179.Google Scholar
Oakes, Robert (2012) ‘Strong interiority and (traditional) theism: what's the problem?’, Ratio, 25, 6878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, John (1979) ‘The problem of the essential indexical’, Nous, 13, 321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfeifer, Karl (2016) ‘Pantheism as panpsychism’, in Buckareff, A. & Nagasawa, Y. (eds) Alternative Concepts of God: Essays in the Metaphysics of the Divine (New York: Oxford University Press), 4149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pruss, Alexander (2013) ‘Omnipresence, multilocation, the real presence, and time travel’, Journal of Analytic Theology, 1, 6073.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand (1903) The Principles of Mathematics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Swinburne, Richard (1993) The Coherence of Theism, rev. edn (New York: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, A. N. (1929) Process and Reality (New York: Macmillan).Google Scholar
Zagzebski, Linda (2008) ‘Omnisubjectivity’, Oxford Studies in the Philosophy of Religion, 1, 231247.Google Scholar

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Theistic consubstantialism and omniscience
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Theistic consubstantialism and omniscience
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Theistic consubstantialism and omniscience
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *