Graduate studies at Western
Heythrop Journal 44 (1):60-63 (2003)
|Abstract||According to one antitheist argument, God cannot know what it is like to be me because He, who is necessarily unlimited and necessarily incorporeal, cannot have my point of view. In his recent article, William J. Mander tries to demonstrate that God can indeed have His own point of view and my point of view at the same time by providing examples that seem to motivate his claim. I argue that none of his examples succeeds in this task. I introduce a different objection to the antitheist argument that appeals to the Thomistic principle regarding divine attributes.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
W. J. Mander (2013). On Arguing for the Existence of God as a Synthesis Between Realism and Anti-Realism. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 74 (1):99-115.
John I. Biro (2006). A Point of View on Points of View. Philosophical Psychology 19 (1):3-12.
Diogenes Allen (1989). Incarnation In the Gospels and the Bhagavad Gita. Faith and Philosophy 6 (3):241-259.
Klaas J. Kraay (2007). Divine Unsurpassability. Philosophia 35 (3-4):293-300.
Howard Sankey (2004). Scientific Realism and the God's Eye Point of View. Epistemologia 27 (2):211-226.
Michel Ghins (2005). Putnam and the God's Eye Point of View. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 5 (2):235-243.
Yujin Nagasawa (2003). God's Point of View: A Reply to Mander. Heythrop Journal 44 (1):60–63.
Added to index2009-07-10
Total downloads3 ( #213,563 of 739,303 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?