On the Infinite God Objection: a Reply to Jacobus Erasmus and Anné Hendrik Verhoef

Abstract

Erasmus and Verhoef suggest that a promising response to the infinite God objection to the Kalām cosmological argument include showing that (1) abstract objects do not exist and (2) actually infinite knowledge is impossible, and (3) redefining omniscience as (G): For any proposition p, if God consciously thinks about p, God will either accept p as true if and only if p is true, or accept p as false if and only if p is false. I argue that there is insufficient motivation for showing (1) and (2) and that (G) is problematic as a definition of omniscience.