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...
| 主要作者: | |
|---|---|
| 格式: | 电子 文件 |
| 语言: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| 出版: |
[2017]
|
| In: |
European journal for philosophy of religion
Year: 2017, 卷: 9, 发布: 1, Pages: 65-86 |
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
Rowe, William L. 1931-
/ 神存在的提问
/ 神存在的本体论论证
|
| IxTheo Classification: | AB Philosophy of religion; criticism of religion; atheism NBC Doctrine of God |
| 在线阅读: |
Volltext (doi) Volltext (teilw. kostenfrei) |
| 总结: | 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. |
|---|---|
| Contains: | Enthalten in: European journal for philosophy of religion
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.24204/ejpr.v9i1.1865 |
