Graduate studies at Western
Noûs 22 (2):235-252 (1988)
|Abstract||The modal argument for the incompatibility of causal determinism and freedom to do otherwise is discussed. It is argued that there is no interpretation of the argument on which it is uncontroversially sound. That is, there are some important gaps in the argument, and it is illuminating to see precisely where these gaps are. The criticism of the modal argument is defended against certain examples offered by Ginet and van Inwagen.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Steve Clarke (2003). Response to Mumford and Another Definition of Miracles. Religious Studies 39 (4):459-463.
T. Brian Mooney & Anthony Imbrosciano (2005). The Curious Case of Mr. Locke's Miracles. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 57 (3):147 - 168.
Stephen Mumford (2001). Miracles: Metaphysics and Modality. Religious Studies 37 (2):191-202.
Jacqueline Mariña (1998). The Theological and Philosophical Significance of the Markan Account of Miracles. Faith and Philosophy 15 (3):298-323.
Travis Dumsday (2008). Locke on Competing Miracles. Faith and Philosophy 25 (4):416-424.
By John Whipple (2008). Hobbes on Miracles. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 89 (1):117–142.
John Earman (2000). Hume's Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles. Oxford University Press.
Richard Otte (2004). Review of Fogelin, A Defense of Hume on Miracles. [REVIEW] Hume Studies 30 (1):165-68.
Michael Almeida (2007). Martin on Miracles. Philo 10 (1):27-34.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads10 ( #114,476 of 739,539 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,680 of 739,539 )
How can I increase my downloads?