✦ LIBER ✦

The incoherence argument: reply to Schafer-Landau

✍ Scribed by Michael Smith

Book ID: 108518914
Publisher: Oxford University Press
Year: 2001
Tongue: English
Weight: 60 KB
Volume: 61
Category: Article
ISSN: 0003-2638
DOI: 10.1111/1467-8284.00303

No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.

📜 SIMILAR VOLUMES

A Contextualist Reply to the Direct Argu

A Contextualist Reply to the Direct Argument

✍ Matthew H. Slater 📂 Article 📅 2005 🏛 Springer Netherlands 🌐 English ⚖ 248 KB

Reply to Nathan: How to reconstruct the

Reply to Nathan: How to reconstruct the causal argument

✍ Howard Robinson 📂 Article 📅 2005 🏛 Springer Netherlands 🌐 English ⚖ 176 KB

Reply to “ A critical analysis of N. Boh

Reply to “ A critical analysis of N. Bohr's reply to the EPR argument”

✍ Jes Madsen 📂 Article 📅 1981 🏛 Elsevier Science 🌐 English ⚖ 96 KB

The Ontological argument in neoclassical

The Ontological argument in neoclassical context: Reply to friedman

✍ George L. Goodwin 📂 Article 📅 1983 🏛 Springer 🌐 English ⚖ 869 KB

In his article, 'Necessity and the Ontological Argument',\* Professor Friedman correctly identifies the two major assumptions of Hartshorne's ontological argument: (Pl) It is possible that God exists (perfection is not impossible); (P2) it is necessary that if God exists, God necessarily exists (Ans

Reply to “Another attack on the sign-cha

Reply to “Another attack on the sign-change argument”

✍ Kamal Bhattacharyya; S.P. Bhattacharyya 📂 Article 📅 1981 🏛 Elsevier Science 🌐 English ⚖ 217 KB

Where the regress argument still goes wr

Where the regress argument still goes wrong: reply to Knowles

✍ Eric Margolis; Stephen Laurence 📂 Article 📅 1999 🏛 Oxford University Press 🌐 English ⚖ 279 KB