David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philo 7 (1):71-78 (2004)
In the second chapter of his Modality, Probability and Rationality, James Sennett argues that Plantinga’s famed S5 Modal Argument (hereafter “MA”) for the existence of an unsurpassably great being is objectionably circular since it’s impossible for one to understand the premises of Plantinga’s MA without understanding these premises to logically entail its conclusion. That is to say, Sennett’s charge is that Plantinga’s MA is circular since there is no understanding of the premises of Plantinga’s MA that is independent of its conclusion. In this paper I argue that Sennett has shown no such thing and that, contrary to strong prima facie appearances, there is an understanding of the premises of Plantinga’s MA that is independent of its conclusion. Consequently, Plantinga’s MA is not circular inthe way that Sennett alleges
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Aaron Segal & Alvin Plantinga (2010). Response to Churchland. Philo 13 (2):201-207.
Charles Sayward (1985). God and Empty Terms. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 18 (3):149 - 152.
Raymond D. Bradley, The Free Will Defense Refuted and God's Existence Disproved. Internet Infidels Modern Library.
Wes Morriston (2008). Must an 'Origins Agnostic' Be Skeptical About Everything? Philo 11 (2):165-176.
Jonathan L. Kvanvig (1994). He Who Lapse Last Lapse Best: Plantinga on Leibniz'Lapse. Southwest Philosophy Review 10 (1):137-146.
N. M. L. Nathan (1997). Naturalism and Self-Defeat: Plantinga's Version. Religious Studies 33 (2):135-142.
Eric Vogelstein (2004). The Consistency of Plantinga's Argument Against Naturalism. Philo 7 (1):122-125.
Rik Peels (2013). Are Naturalism and Moral Realism Incompatible? Religious Studies (1):1-10.
Matthew Davidson (2003). Introduction to Alvin Plantinga, Essays in the Metaphysics of Modality. In Essays in the Metaphysics of Modality.
Tyler Wunder (2007). Critical Study of James K. Beilby, Epistemology as Theology: An Evaluation of Alvin Plantinga's Religious Epistemology. Philo 10 (2):168-186.
Deane-Peter Baker (ed.) (2007). Alvin Plantinga. Cambridge University Press.
Berit Brogaard & Joe Salerno (2005). Antirealism, Theism and the Conditional Fallacy. Noûs 39 (1):123–139.
Branden Fitelson & Elliott Sober (1998). Plantinga's Probability Arguments Against Evolutionary Naturalism. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 79 (2):115–129.
Ernest Sosa (2007). Natural Theology and Naturalist Atheology: Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. In Deane-Peter Baker (ed.), Alvin Plantinga. Cambridge University Press.
Chris Heathwood (2011). The Relevance of Kant's Objection to Anselm's Ontological Argument. Religious Studies 47 (3):345-357.
Added to index2011-01-09
Total downloads21 ( #96,098 of 1,692,644 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #181,401 of 1,692,644 )
How can I increase my downloads?