The Modal-Epistemic Argument Defended
Reply to Wintein
Datos Bibliográficos
| ID | 21394634 |
|---|---|
| Autores | Emanuel Rutten (0000-0002-6696-9979, autor de correspondencia) |
| Año | 2022 |
| Volumen | 61 |
| Número | 4 |
| Páginas | 775-793 |
| Fecha de publicación | 2022-12-01 |
| Open Access | Sí |
| Tipo | ARTICLE |
| Revista | Sophia (JOURNAL) |
| Identificadores de la revista | ISSN: 0038-1527 • E-ISSN: 1873-930X |
| Editorial | Springer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1007/s11841-022-00909-0 |
| OpenAlex | W3163095987 |
| Idioma | EN |
| Citas recibidas | 1 |
| Referencias citadas | 5 |
Recently, Stefan Wintein published an article in which he presents four objections to my modal-epistemic argument for the existence of God. His first objection is an alleged counterexample to the argument’s first premise, and the second objection is an alleged counterexample to the argument’s second premise. Wintein’s third objection attempts to show that the modal-epistemic argument is circular. Finally, the fourth objection is a parody objection. In this paper, I show that Wintein’s four objections all fail
Argument (complex analysis) · Epistemology · Modal · Ontological argument · Philosophy of religion · Chemistry · Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics · Free Will and Agency · Medicine · Philosophy · Political Philosophy and Ethics
| Citas por año | 0,33 |
|---|---|
| Intervalo de citas | 2023 - 2023 (1) |
| Altamente citado | No |