DOES ATHEISM ENTAIL A CONTRADICTION?

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: RASMUSSEN,JOSHUA
Data de Publicação: 2021
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Manuscrito (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-60452021000400031
Resumo: Abstract I consider whether a contradiction may be deducible from the proposition that God does not exist. First, I expose a candidate counterexample to a key premise in Swinburne’s argument against the deducibility of a contradiction from God’s non-existence. Second, I present two new strategies one might use to deduce a contradiction. Both strategies make use of Tarski's T-schema together with developments in other theistic arguments. One argument is a conceptualist argument from necessary truth for a necessary mind, and the other is a two-stage contingency argument for the same conclusion. The purpose of this article is not to decisively defend these arguments, but to expose new territory relevant to investigating the nature of God's necessity (if God exists).
id UNICAMP-17_80bb175f58360a1e24e9f85c70b2d9c9
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S0100-60452021000400031
network_acronym_str UNICAMP-17
network_name_str Manuscrito (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling DOES ATHEISM ENTAIL A CONTRADICTION?Necessary existenceOntological argumentGod's necessityPerfect being theologyNatural theologyAbstract I consider whether a contradiction may be deducible from the proposition that God does not exist. First, I expose a candidate counterexample to a key premise in Swinburne’s argument against the deducibility of a contradiction from God’s non-existence. Second, I present two new strategies one might use to deduce a contradiction. Both strategies make use of Tarski's T-schema together with developments in other theistic arguments. One argument is a conceptualist argument from necessary truth for a necessary mind, and the other is a two-stage contingency argument for the same conclusion. The purpose of this article is not to decisively defend these arguments, but to expose new territory relevant to investigating the nature of God's necessity (if God exists).UNICAMP - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Centro de Lógica, Epistemologia e História da Ciência2021-12-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-60452021000400031Manuscrito v.44 n.4 2021reponame:Manuscrito (Online)instname:Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)instacron:UNICAMP10.1590/0100-6045.2021.v44n4.jrinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessRASMUSSEN,JOSHUAeng2021-12-08T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0100-60452021000400031Revistahttp://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_serial&pid=0100-6045&lng=pt&nrm=isoPUBhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phpmwrigley@cle.unicamp.br|| dascal@spinoza.tau.ac.il||publicacoes@cle.unicamp.br2317-630X0100-6045opendoar:2021-12-08T00:00Manuscrito (Online) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv DOES ATHEISM ENTAIL A CONTRADICTION?
title DOES ATHEISM ENTAIL A CONTRADICTION?
spellingShingle DOES ATHEISM ENTAIL A CONTRADICTION?
RASMUSSEN,JOSHUA
Necessary existence
Ontological argument
God's necessity
Perfect being theology
Natural theology
title_short DOES ATHEISM ENTAIL A CONTRADICTION?
title_full DOES ATHEISM ENTAIL A CONTRADICTION?
title_fullStr DOES ATHEISM ENTAIL A CONTRADICTION?
title_full_unstemmed DOES ATHEISM ENTAIL A CONTRADICTION?
title_sort DOES ATHEISM ENTAIL A CONTRADICTION?
author RASMUSSEN,JOSHUA
author_facet RASMUSSEN,JOSHUA
author_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv RASMUSSEN,JOSHUA
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Necessary existence
Ontological argument
God's necessity
Perfect being theology
Natural theology
topic Necessary existence
Ontological argument
God's necessity
Perfect being theology
Natural theology
description Abstract I consider whether a contradiction may be deducible from the proposition that God does not exist. First, I expose a candidate counterexample to a key premise in Swinburne’s argument against the deducibility of a contradiction from God’s non-existence. Second, I present two new strategies one might use to deduce a contradiction. Both strategies make use of Tarski's T-schema together with developments in other theistic arguments. One argument is a conceptualist argument from necessary truth for a necessary mind, and the other is a two-stage contingency argument for the same conclusion. The purpose of this article is not to decisively defend these arguments, but to expose new territory relevant to investigating the nature of God's necessity (if God exists).
publishDate 2021
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2021-12-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-60452021000400031
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-60452021000400031
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/0100-6045.2021.v44n4.jr
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv UNICAMP - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Centro de Lógica, Epistemologia e História da Ciência
publisher.none.fl_str_mv UNICAMP - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Centro de Lógica, Epistemologia e História da Ciência
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Manuscrito v.44 n.4 2021
reponame:Manuscrito (Online)
instname:Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)
instacron:UNICAMP
instname_str Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)
instacron_str UNICAMP
institution UNICAMP
reponame_str Manuscrito (Online)
collection Manuscrito (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Manuscrito (Online) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv mwrigley@cle.unicamp.br|| dascal@spinoza.tau.ac.il||publicacoes@cle.unicamp.br
_version_ 1748950065965170688