F-Duplicates and Trivialization: A Reply to Speaks

Faith and Philosophy 37 (4):500-515 (2020)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In this paper, I will defend a strategy for employing perfect being theology that Jeff Speaks calls “restriction strategy.” In Section I, I will outline what the restriction strategy is and explicate Speaks’s objection to it. In Section II, I will propose a response to Speaks’s objection. In Section III, the response will be refined to avoid objections. My contention will be that this refined version of perfect being theology avoids Speaks’s objection, and therefore can help theists find what divine attributes God has.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,960

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Is Perfect Being Theology Informative?Brian Leftow - 2022 - Philosophical Quarterly 73 (1):164-183.
Fine-Tuning the Multiverse in advance.Thomas Metcalf - 2018 - Faith and Philosophy 35 (1).
Being Perfect is Not Necessary for Being God.Jeanine Diller - 2019 - European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 11 (2):43-64.
The “who designed the designer?” objection to design arguments.Lloyd Strickland - 2014 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 75 (2):87-100.
Deep and Wide: A Response to Jeff Jordan on Divine Love.Ross Parker - 2013 - Faith and Philosophy 30 (4):444-461.
An apophatic response to the evidential argument from evil.Brown Joshua Matthan - 2017 - International Journal of Philosophy and Theology 78 (4-5):485-497.

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-05-09

Downloads
56 (#390,790)

6 months
11 (#379,489)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Tien-Chun Lo
Chinese University of Hong Kong

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references