A response to Almeida and Judisch
Our new cosmological argument for the existence of God weakens the usual Principle of Sufficient Reason premise that every contingent true proposition has an explanation to a weaker principle (WPSR) that every such proposition could have an explanation. Almeida and Judisch have criticized the premis...
| Authors: | ; |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Springer Nature B. V
2003
|
| In: |
International journal for philosophy of religion
Year: 2003, Volume: 53, Issue: 2, Pages: 65-72 |
| Further subjects: | B
Weak Principle
B True Proposition B Sufficient Reason B Cosmological Argument B Alternate Explanation |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (JSTOR) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Parallel Edition: | Non-electronic
|
MARC
| LEADER | 00000naa a22000002 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 1821426126 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20221110052755.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 221110s2003 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1023/A:1023384016242 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)1821426126 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)KXP1821426126 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rda | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 084 | |a 0 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Pruss, Alexander R. |e VerfasserIn |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 2 | |a A response to Almeida and Judisch |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2003 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Our new cosmological argument for the existence of God weakens the usual Principle of Sufficient Reason premise that every contingent true proposition has an explanation to a weaker principle (WPSR) that every such proposition could have an explanation. Almeida and Judisch have criticized the premises of our argument for leading to a contradiction. We show that their argument fails, but along the way we are led to clarify the nature of the conclusion of our argument. Moreover, we discuss an argument against us based on a principle of alternate explanation incompatible with our WPSR, and show that his argument fails. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Weak Principle | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Cosmological Argument | |
| 650 | 4 | |a True Proposition | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Sufficient Reason | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Alternate Explanation | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Gale, Richard M. |e VerfasserIn |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t International journal for philosophy of religion |d Dordrecht : Springer Nature B.V, 1970 |g 53(2003), 2, Seite 65-72 |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:53 |g year:2003 |g number:2 |g pages:65-72 |
| 776 | |i Erscheint auch als |n Druckausgabe |w (DE-627)164541972X |k Non-Electronic | ||
| 856 | |3 Volltext |u http://www.jstor.org/stable/40036595 |x JSTOR | ||
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023384016242 |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 4208230134 | ||
| LOK | |0 003 DE-627 | ||
| LOK | |0 004 1821426126 | ||
| LOK | |0 005 20221110052755 | ||
| LOK | |0 008 221110||||||||||||||||ger||||||| | ||
| LOK | |0 035 |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2022-09-28#879100B18918CD08173BB46301704DF0F68653FF | ||
| 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/40036595 | ||
| LOK | |0 935 |a ixzs |a ixrk |a zota | ||
| ORI | |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw | ||
| REL | |a 1 | ||
| SUB | |a REL | ||