Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Theism, necessity and invalidity

  • Published:
Sophia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. In particular the writings of Alvin Plantinga have employed such a concept of God. Cf.The Nature of Necessity (Oxford University Press, 1974, Chapter X, ‘God and Necessity’);God, Freedom and Evil (Harper & Row, 1974); andDoes God Have a Nature? (Marquette University Press, 1980). Various other writers on the philosophy of religion have embraced the modal concept of God, with some arguing a theist position and others arguing the atheist viewpoint. In ‘An Agnostic Argument’ (International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 14:249–252, 1983) I have employed the modal concept of a necessary God in justification of the agnostic view that one ought to withhold judgement concerning the existence of God.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, Fredonia State University College, New York, U.S.A.

    Kenneth G. Lucey

Authors
  1. Kenneth G. Lucey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lucey, K.G. Theism, necessity and invalidity. SOPH 25, 47–50 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02781074

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02781074

Keywords

Search

Navigation