Philo 10 (2):114-124 (2007)
In this paper I argue that Richard Swinburne fails to adequately support his Principle of Credulity in favor of the validity of alleged experiences of God. I then formulate an alternative, analogical argument for the validity of alleged experiences of God from the validity of sense-perceptual experiences, and defend it against objections of Gale and Fales. But then I argue against trying to establish the validity of alleged experiences of God by analogy
|Keywords||Philosophy and Religion|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Experience of God and the Principle of Credulity.Peter Losin - 1987 - Faith and Philosophy 4 (1):59-70.
Credulism.Jonathan L. Kvanvig - 1984 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 16 (2):101 - 109.
Richard Swinburne, the Existence of God, and Principle P.Jeremy Gwiazda - 2009 - Sophia 48 (4):393-398.
Do Mystics See God?Evan Fales - 2004 - In Michael L. Peterson & Raymond J. VanArragon (eds.), Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Religion. Blackwell. pp. 145--148.
William Rowe on the Evidential Value of Appearances.James Beilby - 1995 - Faith and Philosophy 12 (2):251-259.
God Laughs: And Other Surprising Things You Never Knew About Him.Charles Billingsley - 2009 - Regal Books.
God Laughs: And Other Surprising Things You Never Knew About Him.Elmer L. Towns - 2009 - Regal Books.
Added to index2011-01-09
Total downloads15 ( #312,761 of 2,164,541 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #188,462 of 2,164,541 )
How can I increase my downloads?