The sufficiency and necessity of (Swinburne’s) Natural Theology
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 7212781 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Rogel Esteves De Oliveira (Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2018 |
| Volume | 2 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 117-126 |
| Publication date | 2018-10-19 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Revista Brasileira de Filosofia da Religião (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2358-8284 |
| Publisher | Instituto de Estudos da Religião (PUBLISHER • BR) |
| DOI | 10.26512/2358-82842015e17380 |
| OpenAlex | W2613965378 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 4 |
The conclusion of Swinburne’s book The existence of God is that “On our total evidence theism is more probable than not”. I will not dispute that conclusion, as others have done. I will concede that the conclusion is supported by Swinburne’s argument and that the argument is in fact “good”. I will question, however, the impact of that conclusion ”“ with the use of the argument that supports it - for the epistemological enterprise of justifying theistic belief, that is, the belief that God exists. Developing criticism given by Alvin Plantinga (2001), I will question the sufficiency and necessity of Swinburne’s probabilistic argument for the epistemic justification of a subject S’s belief that God exists, where S is a religious person, say, a Christian
Archaeology · Economics · Environmental ethics · Natural (archaeology · Natural theology · Theology · Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics · History · Medieval Philosophy and Theology · Philosophy · Theology and Philosophy of Evil
| Highly cited | No |
|---|