Philosophia Christi 13 (1):199 - 202 (2011)

David Reiter
Erskine College
My original dilemma claimed that the transcendental argument for God’s existence is either superfluous (if the goal is to establish the actual existence of God) or inadequate (if the goal is to establish the necessary existence of God). In this rejoinder to James Anderson, I begin by noting some important points of agreement. I then clarify the differences between pattern-I, pattern-II, and pattern-III theistic arguments. I comment on each of Anderson’s three proposed lines of response and defend by original dilemma, on the assumption that TAG is formulated as a pattern-II argument
Keywords Contemporary Philosophy  Philosophy and Religion
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.5840/pc201113115
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 54,676
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
10 ( #827,528 of 2,386,408 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #554,109 of 2,386,408 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes