The Universality of Divine Knowledge and Power: Classical Objections

Read-only question overview. Answers and scoring remain inside authenticated learner attempts.

• What principle is expressed by “Nothing lies outside His knowledge and power”?
• Which distinction between knowledge and power is correct?
• Why is a thing both existent and nonexistent in the same respect not an object of power?
• What are “particulars” in the claim “He does not know particulars”?
• If Zayd is indoors in the morning and outdoors later, what follows about divine knowledge?
• Which assumption underlies the objection from changing particulars?
• What distinguishes a change of taʿalluq from a change in knowledge itself?
• Why does knowing a universal rule not automatically supply every particular fact?
• For what claim is “From one only one proceeds” invoked?
• What does not follow merely from unity of the divine essence?
• Why is a voluntary agent important to the critique of “one effect only”?
• Which premise underlies the reported Dahriyya objection to divine self-knowledge?
• What is the main reply to the objection against self-knowledge?
• Which two things are excluded from power in the position attributed to al-Naẓẓām?
• Why does creating a creature’s ignorance not entail ignorance in the creator?
• What does not follow from the occurrence or creation of a wrongful act?
• Which distinction correctly states khalq versus kasb?
• How do “like the servant’s act” and “the very servant’s act” differ?
• What is limited in the position attributed to al-Balkhī?
• In the reported general Muʿtazilī view, what is “the very act under the servant’s power”?
• What is the first step in analyzing two “relations of power” to one act?
• Which comparison of eternal and originated power is correct?
• Which inference is invalid?
• For an act of oppression, which question concerns moral evaluation?
• What reasoning principle unites the debates over particulars and human acts?
• What is the unifying conclusion of the section?
• Changes in external objects do not necessarily imply new divine knowledge.
• “An act like the servant’s” and “the very act of the servant” must mean exactly the same thing here.
• Creating ignorance in a creature does not prove that the creator is ignorant.
• Having power over an act automatically implies its moral permission and approval.