Hi Dr Pruss, Sorry for commenting on old post but just wanted to know does the kind of necessary being you defend able to accommodate a priori atheological conceivability arguments ?
Well we aren't defending the existence of God as such, but of a necessary being. So the best atheological conceivability argument - the modal argument from evil - doesn't harm the line of thought. Now both Josh and I think the necessary being is God, so we need a response - but not in the book. An easy answer is that conceivability is defeasible evidence for possibility, and in this case the arguments for the existence of God provide a defeater.
9 comments:
Congratulations!
Congratulations!
I'm really looking forward to this. Please post more updates as this unfolds
Hi Dr Pruss,
Sorry for commenting on old post but just wanted to know does the kind of necessary being you defend able to accommodate a priori atheological conceivability arguments ?
Well we aren't defending the existence of God as such, but of a necessary being. So the best atheological conceivability argument - the modal argument from evil - doesn't harm the line of thought.
Now both Josh and I think the necessary being is God, so we need a response - but not in the book.
An easy answer is that conceivability is defeasible evidence for possibility, and in this case the arguments for the existence of God provide a defeater.
so the necessary being you defend can be a moderate Anselmian God as proposed by Mike Almeida ?
Is there a release date for this book?
I don't know. Maybe this winter?
I see. Thank you for the update, and I look forward to reading it when it is released!
Post a Comment