The aloneness argument: an aspectival response
This article seeks to provide a response to the Aloneness Argument Against Classical Theism proposed by Joseph C. Schmid and Ryan T. Mullins. This response focuses on showing the unsoundness of the argument once the Doctrine of Divine Simplicity is reformulated within the essentialist aspectival fra...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Contributors: | |
Format: | Electronic Article |
Language: | English |
Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
Journals Online & Print: | |
Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
Published: |
Springer Nature B. V
2022
|
In: |
International journal for philosophy of religion
Year: 2022, Volume: 91, Issue: 3, Pages: 177-203 |
Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
God
/ Loneliness
/ Simplicity of God
/ Omnipotence
/ Attribute
/ Essentialism
/ Theism
|
RelBib Classification: | AB Philosophy of religion; criticism of religion; atheism NBC Doctrine of God VA Philosophy |
Further subjects: | B
Divine Simplicity
B Essentialism B Aspects B Classical Theism |
Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
Summary: | This article seeks to provide a response to the Aloneness Argument Against Classical Theism proposed by Joseph C. Schmid and Ryan T. Mullins. This response focuses on showing the unsoundness of the argument once the Doctrine of Divine Simplicity is reformulated within the essentialist aspectival framework provided by the Aspectival Account. Formulating a response to this argument will thus also serve the further purpose of providing an extension of the Aspectival Account and a needed revision of the Doctrine of Divine Simplicity, which can aid others in their quest to further clarify the nature of this doctrine. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1572-8684 |
Reference: | Kritik von "The aloneness argument against classical theism (2021)"
|
Contains: | Enthalten in: International journal for philosophy of religion
|
Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1007/s11153-021-09819-6 |