Religious Studies 46 (2):141-162 (2010)
Most analytic philosophers hold that if God exists, He exists with broad logical necessity. Richard Swinburne denies the distinction between narrow and broad logical necessity, and argues that if God exists, His existence is narrow-logically contingent. A defender of divine broad logical necessity could grant the latter claim. I argue, however, that not only is God's existence broad-logically necessary, but on a certain understanding of God's relation to modality, it comes out narrow-logically necessary. This piece argues against Swinburne's overall account of modality and rebuts his argument for narrow-logical contingency
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Doing Natural Theology Consistently with Theism and Why One Might Stop Trying.T. J. Mawson - 2017 - Religious Studies 53 (3):339-351.
Similar books and articles
Richard Swinburne, the Existence of God, and Principle P.Jeremy Gwiazda - 2009 - Sophia 48 (4):393-398.
Divine Self-Limitation in Swinburne's Doctrine of Omniscience.Avery Fouts - 1993 - Religious Studies 29 (1):21-26.
What Does the Old Testament Mean?Richard Swinburne - 2010 - In M. Bergmann, M. Murray & M. Rae (eds.), Divine Evil?, the Moral Character of the God of Abraham. Oxford Up.
Aquinas, Divine Simplicity and Divine Freedom.Brian Leftow - 2009 - In Kevin Timpe & Eleonore Stump (eds.), Metaphysics and God: Essays in Honor of Eleonore Stump. Routledge.
Calvin and Bernard on Freedom and Necessity: A Reply to Brümmer.Paul Helm - 1994 - Religious Studies 30 (4):457 - 465.
Added to index2010-04-30
Total downloads138 ( #34,950 of 2,178,192 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #112,486 of 2,178,192 )
How can I increase my downloads?