The Modal-Epistemic Argument Defended

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

• The Modal-Epistemic Argument Self-undermined

  Open Access•Stefan Wintein•Sophia•2023

  Incluir item

• Does Conceivability Entail Possibility?

  David J Chalmers•Conceivability and possibility•2002

  Incluir item

• A new anti-Molinist argument

  Open Access•William Hasker•Religious Studies•1999

  Incluir item

• What Is It Like to Be a Bat

  Thomas Nagel•The Philosophical Review•1974

  Incluir item