Graduate studies at Western
Religious Studies 46 (2):141-162 (2010)
|Abstract||Most analytic philosophers hold that if God exists, He exists with broad logical necessity. Richard Swinburne denies the distinction between narrow and broad logical necessity, and argues that if God exists, His existence is narrow-logically contingent. A defender of divine broad logical necessity could grant the latter claim. I argue, however, that not only is God's existence broad-logically necessary, but on a certain understanding of God's relation to modality, it comes out narrow-logically necessary. This piece argues against Swinburne's overall account of modality and rebuts his argument for narrow-logical contingency|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jeremy Gwiazda (2009). Richard Swinburne, the Existence of God, and Principle P. Sophia 48 (4):393-398.
Avery Fouts (1993). Divine Self-Limitation in Swinburne's Doctrine of Omniscience. Religious Studies 29 (1):21 - 26.
Richard Swinburne (2010). What Does the Old Testament Mean? In M. Bergmann, M. Murray & M. Rae (eds.), Divine Evil?, the Moral Character of the God of Abraham. Oxford Up.
Brian Leftow (2009). Aquinas, Divine Simplicity and Divine Freedom. In Kevin Timpe & Eleonore Stump (eds.), Metaphysics and God: Essays in Honor of Eleonore Stump. Routledge.
Richard Swinburne (1992). Divine Nature and Human Language. Faith and Philosophy 9 (1):116-120.
Charles E. Gutenson (1997). What Swinburne Should Have Concluded. Religious Studies 33 (3):243-247.
Paul Helm (1994). Calvin and Bernard on Freedom and Necessity: A Reply to Brümmer. Religious Studies 30 (4):457 - 465.
Richard Swinburne (1994). The Christian God. Oxford University Press.
Kelly James Clark (1996). Trinity or Tritheism? Religious Studies 32 (4):463 - 476.
Added to index2010-04-30
Total downloads98 ( #8,208 of 740,104 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,455 of 740,104 )
How can I increase my downloads?