Paying the cost of skeptical theism
In this paper I show that two arguments for the inconsistency of skeptical theism fail. After setting up the debate in “Introduction” section, I show in “The initial debate” section why Mylan Engel’s argument (Engel 2004) against skeptical theism does not succeed. In “COST” section I strengthen the...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Electronic Article |
Language: | English |
Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
Journals Online & Print: | |
Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
Published: |
Springer Nature B. V
2011
|
In: |
International journal for philosophy of religion
Year: 2011, Volume: 69, Issue: 1, Pages: 45-56 |
Further subjects: | B
CORNEA
B epistemic closure B Counterfactuals B Evidential atheism B problem of evil B Skeptical theism |
Online Access: |
Volltext (JSTOR) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
Parallel Edition: | Electronic
|
MARC
LEADER | 00000caa a22000002 4500 | ||
---|---|---|---|
001 | 1821416880 | ||
003 | DE-627 | ||
005 | 20221206144856.0 | ||
007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
008 | 221110s2011 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s11153-010-9235-8 |2 doi | |
035 | |a (DE-627)1821416880 | ||
035 | |a (DE-599)KXP1821416880 | ||
040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rda | ||
041 | |a eng | ||
084 | |a 0 |2 ssgn | ||
100 | 1 | |a Snapper, Jeff A. |e VerfasserIn |4 aut | |
109 | |a Snapper, Jeff A. |a Snapper, Jeffrey | ||
245 | 1 | 0 | |a Paying the cost of skeptical theism |
264 | 1 | |c 2011 | |
336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
520 | |a In this paper I show that two arguments for the inconsistency of skeptical theism fail. After setting up the debate in “Introduction” section, I show in “The initial debate” section why Mylan Engel’s argument (Engel 2004) against skeptical theism does not succeed. In “COST” section I strengthen the argument so that it both avoids my reply to Engel and parallels Jon Laraudogoitia’s argument against skeptical theism (Laraudogoitia 2000). In “COST*” section, I provide three replies—one by an evidentialist theist, one by a closure-denying theist, and one by a necessitarian theist, and argue that the necessitarian’s reply successfully rebuts the inconsistency charge. I conclude that skeptical theism which accepts God’s necessary existence is immune to both kinds of arguments for its inconsistency. | ||
650 | 4 | |a Counterfactuals | |
650 | 4 | |a epistemic closure | |
650 | 4 | |a Evidential atheism | |
650 | 4 | |a CORNEA | |
650 | 4 | |a Skeptical theism | |
650 | 4 | |a problem of evil | |
773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t International journal for philosophy of religion |d Dordrecht : Springer Nature B.V, 1970 |g 69(2011), 1, Seite 45-56 |h Online-Ressource |w (DE-627)320442098 |w (DE-600)2005049-5 |w (DE-576)103746927 |x 1572-8684 |7 nnns |
773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:69 |g year:2011 |g number:1 |g pages:45-56 |
776 | |i Erscheint auch als |n elektronische Ausgabe |w (DE-627)1646895339 |k Electronic | ||
787 | 0 | 8 | |i Errata |a Snapper, Jeff A. |t Erratum to: Paying the cost of skeptical theism |d 2011 |w (DE-627)1821423941 |
856 | |3 Volltext |u http://www.jstor.org/stable/41474768 |x JSTOR | ||
856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s11153-010-9235-8 |x Resolving-System |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
935 | |a mteo | ||
951 | |a AR | ||
ELC | |a 1 | ||
ITA | |a 1 |t 1 | ||
LOK | |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 | ||
LOK | |0 001 4208220899 | ||
LOK | |0 003 DE-627 | ||
LOK | |0 004 1821416880 | ||
LOK | |0 005 20221110052727 | ||
LOK | |0 008 221110||||||||||||||||ger||||||| | ||
LOK | |0 035 |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2022-09-28#DF2896F4AB69B8B52F1CB5F70EAA3AFB4625E5B8 | ||
LOK | |0 040 |a DE-Tue135 |c DE-627 |d DE-Tue135 | ||
LOK | |0 092 |o n | ||
LOK | |0 852 |a DE-Tue135 | ||
LOK | |0 852 1 |9 00 | ||
LOK | |0 866 |x JSTOR#http://www.jstor.org/stable/41474768 | ||
LOK | |0 935 |a ixzs |a ixrk |a zota | ||
ORI | |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw | ||
REL | |a 1 | ||
SUB | |a REL |