Graduate studies at Western
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 57 (2):389-393 (1997)
|Abstract||According to William Craig, the notion of explanatory priority is the Achilles' heel of Robert Adams' argument against Molinism. Specifically, Craig contends that (1) the notion of explanatory priority is employed equivocally in the argument; (2) Adams is guilty of conflating reasons and causes; and (3) one of the intermediate conclusions of the argument is invalidly inferred, as can be seen by a counterexample. I argue that Craig is mistaken on all counts, and that Adams' argument emerges unscathed|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Wes Morriston (2002). Craig on the Actual Infinite. Religious Studies 38 (2):147-166.
David B. Myers (2003). Rejoinder to William Lane Craig. Religious Studies 39 (4):427-430.
Graham Oppy (2002). Arguing About The Kalam Cosmological Argument. Philo 5 (1):34-61.
William Lane Craig (1994). Robert Adams's New Anti-Molinist Argument. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 54 (4):857-861.
Wes Morriston (2001). Explanatory Priority and the Counterfactuals of Freedom. Faith and Philosophy 18 (1):21-35.
William Hasker (2000). ``Anti-Molinism is Undefeated!&Quot. Faith and Philosophy 17 (1):126-131.
William Lane Craig (1998). ``On Hasker's Defense of Anti-Molinism&Quot. Faith and Philosophy 15 (2):236-240.
William Lane Craig (1998). On Hasker's Defense of Anti-Molinism. Faith and Philosophy 15 (2):236-240.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads9 ( #122,488 of 739,352 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,538 of 739,352 )
How can I increase my downloads?