David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Religious Studies 36 (2):221-225 (2000)
I am most grateful to Richard Gale for the detailed attention which he has paid to my detailed arguments, and for the kind remarks between which he sandwiches his hard-hitting criticisms. The first of the latter is that I (211) between different theses, Ss, Sw, and W. I hope not, but I agree that I may not have made the relation between these sufficiently clear. I am certainly committed to, and sought to argue for, the strong version of the strong thesis
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Richard M. Gale (1991). On the Nature and Existence of God. Cambridge University Press.
Dean Zimmerman (2003). Richard Gale and the Free Will Defense. Philo 6 (1):78-113.
Russell B. Goodman (2000). Review: Richard M. Gale the Divided Self of William James. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999). Pp. 364. $59.95. [REVIEW] Religious Studies 36 (2):227-245.
Richard M. Gale (1963). A Reply to Smart, Mayo and Thalberg on "Tensed Statements". Philosophical Quarterly 13 (53):351-356.
Theodore M. Drange (2003). Gale on Omnipotence. Philo 6 (1):23-26.
Richard M. Gale (1964). A Reply on the Alleged Futurity of Yesterday. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 24 (3):421-422.
Richard Gale (1993). A Reply to Paul Helm. Religious Studies 29 (2):257 - 263.
Richard M. Gale (1977). A Reply to Oaklander. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 38 (2):234-238.
John Post (2004). Reply to Gale and Pruss. Philo: A Journal of Philosophy 7 (1):114-121.
John F. Post (2004). Reply to Gale and Pruss. Philo 7 (1):114-121.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads15 ( #90,306 of 1,088,400 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #69,601 of 1,088,400 )
How can I increase my downloads?