Graduate studies at Western
Philosophical Quarterly 58 (233):577-596 (2008)
|Abstract||Anselmian theists, for whom God is the being than which no greater can be thought, usually infer that he is an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent being. Critics have attacked these claims by numerous distinct arguments, such as the paradox of the stone, the argument from God's inability to sin, and the argument from evil. Anselmian theists have responded to these arguments by constructing an independent response to each. This way of defending Anselmian theism is uneconomical. I seek to establish a new defence which undercuts almost all the existing arguments against Anselmian theism at once. In developing this defence, I consider the possibility that the Anselmian God is not an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent being.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Yujin Nagasawa (2011). Anselmian Theism. Philosophy Compass 6 (8):564-571.
Graham Oppy (2011). Perfection, Near-Perfection, Maximality, and Anselmian Theism. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 69 (2):119-138.
Wes Morriston (2001). Omnipotence and the Anselmian God. Philo 4 (1):7-20.
Paul Tidman (1993). The Epistemology of Evil Possibilities. Faith and Philosophy 10 (2):181-197.
Katherin A. Rogers (2007). Anselmian Eternalism. Faith and Philosophy 24 (1):3-27.
Katherin A. Rogers (2007). Anselmian Eternalism: The Presence of a Timeless God. Faith and Philosophy 24 (1):3-27.
Klaas J. Kraay (2011). Incommensurability, Incomparability, and God's Choice of a World. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 69 (2):91 - 102.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads39 ( #34,780 of 739,352 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #26,322 of 739,352 )
How can I increase my downloads?