The Modal-Epistemic Argument Defended
Reply to Wintein
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21394634 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Emanuel Rutten (0000-0002-6696-9979, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2022 |
| Volume | 61 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 775-793 |
| Publication date | 2022-12-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Sophia (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0038-1527 • E-ISSN: 1873-930X |
| Publisher | Springer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1007/s11841-022-00909-0 |
| OpenAlex | W3163095987 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 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
| Citations per year | 0.33 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2023 - 2023 (1) |
| Highly cited | No |