Re: i can see a paradox.
Except:
1. The article deals mainly with a specific form of the argument. Not all arguments have the same form, and thus not all of the have the same flaws.
2. They attack logical determinism by saying "If a certain proposition is true, that does not imply that the proposition is logically necessary". Arguably, however, infallible omniscience does just that: An event known by an infallible omniscient being must happen... it could not have not happened or the being would be fallible.
|