Religious Studies 45 (4):487-493 (2009)
In ’The Coherence of Theism’ Richard Swinburne writes that a person cannot be omniscient and perfectly free. In ’The Existence of God’ Swinburne writes that God is a person who is omniscient and perfectly free. There is a straightforward reason why the two passages are not in tension, but recognition of this reason raises a problem for Swinburne’s argument in ’The Existence of God’ (the conclusion of which is that God likely exists). In this paper I present the problem for Swinburne’s argument. I then consider two potential responses and suggest that neither succeeds
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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
Death and God: The Case of Richard Swinburne.Victor Cosculluela - 1997 - Religious Studies 33 (3):293-302.
Swinburne's Modal Argument for the Existence of a Soul.Agnieszka Rostalska & Rafal Urbaniak - 2009 - Philo 12 (1):73-87.
Review of The Resurrection of God Incarnate. [REVIEW]N. N. - 2005 - Faith and Philosophy 22 (2):235-238.
Is the Principle of Testimony Simply Epistemically Fundamental or Simply Not? Swinburne on Knowledge by Testimony.Nicola Mößner & Markus Seidel - 2008 - In Nicola Mößner, Sebastian Schmoranzer & Christian Weidemann (eds.), Richard Swinburne. Christian Philosophy in a Modern World. Ontos.
Richard Swinburne, the Existence of God, and Exact Numerical Values.Jeremy Gwiazda - 2010 - Philosophia 38 (2):357-363.
Richard Swinburne, the Existence of God, and Principle P.Jeremy Gwiazda - 2009 - Sophia 48 (4):393-398.
Added to index2009-10-25
Total downloads62 ( #85,692 of 2,178,255 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #166,094 of 2,178,255 )
How can I increase my downloads?