Waiting for Godo and Godan
In his critique of Anselms ontological argument for Gods existence, William Rowe introduces the concepts of magico and magican defining magicos as magicians that do not exist, and magicans as magicians that do exist to help diagnose what may have gone wrong in Anselms argument. As I m...
| Auteur principal: | |
|---|---|
| Type de support: | Électronique Article |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Publié: |
[2017]
|
| Dans: |
European journal for philosophy of religion
Année: 2017, Volume: 9, Numéro: 1, Pages: 65-86 |
| Sujets / Chaînes de mots-clés standardisés: | B
Rowe, William L. 1931-
/ Question de l’existence de Dieu
/ Preuve ontologique de l’existence de Dieu
|
| Classifications IxTheo: | AB Philosophie de la religion NBC Dieu |
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (doi) Volltext (teilw. kostenfrei) |
| Résumé: | In his critique of Anselms ontological argument for Gods existence, William Rowe introduces the concepts of magico and magican defining magicos as magicians that do not exist, and magicans as magicians that do exist to help diagnose what may have gone wrong in Anselms argument. As I made my way through Rowes intriguing article, I found myself waiting for Godo and for Godan. I expected Rowe to invoke these counterparts to his magico and magican a non-existing God to correspond to his non-existing magician, and an existing God to correspond to his existing magician to complete his argument. Alas, like Vladimir and Estragon, I waited in vain: neither Godo nor Godan ever appeared. In what follows I shall argue that their inclusion in Rowes argument would have settled the matter against Anselm far more decisively than do Rowes forays into the murky waters of question-begging. |
|---|---|
| Contient: | Enthalten in: European journal for philosophy of religion
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.24204/ejpr.v9i1.1865 |
