On Emily Paul on Brian Leftow

Emily Paul has recently argued that Brian Leftow's account of why the import of God's becoming Incarnate is not temporal but modal fails. She argues that Leftow's required modal variation is not satisfied. That is, we do not have the required variation across logical space concerning...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Collier, Matthew James (Author)
Contributors: Paul, Emily (Bibliographic antecedent)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: Presses Universitaires de Louvain, Université Catholique de Louvain [2019]
In: TheoLogica
Year: 2019, Volume: 3, Issue: 2, Pages: 140-151
IxTheo Classification:NBC Doctrine of God
NBF Christology
VA Philosophy
Further subjects:B Incarnation
B Lewisian theism
B the Son
B Libertarian freedom
B theistic ersatzism
Online Access: Volltext (doi)
Volltext (kostenfrei)

MARC

LEADER 00000caa a22000002 4500
001 1696285178
003 DE-627
005 20220701101940.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 200428s2019 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.14428/thl.v3i2.20543  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1696285178 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1696285178 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Collier, Matthew James  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a On Emily Paul on Brian Leftow 
264 1 |c [2019] 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a Emily Paul has recently argued that Brian Leftow's account of why the import of God's becoming Incarnate is not temporal but modal fails. She argues that Leftow's required modal variation is not satisfied. That is, we do not have the required variation across logical space concerning the Incarnation. Paul examines her argument on two possible worlds theories: theistic ersatzism and (what I call) Lewisian theism. She thinks that both possible worlds theories face difficulties. I argue that Paul fails to provide a compelling argument against Leftow because, firstly, her defence of one her premises fails, and, secondly, she misjudges what is required for some of Leftow's claims to be true. I also argue that some of the problematic consequences that Paul raises for theistic ersatzism and Lewisian theism either are not problematic or can be avoided. 
601 |a Leftow, Brian 
650 4 |a Incarnation 
650 4 |a Lewisian theism 
650 4 |a Libertarian freedom 
650 4 |a the Son 
650 4 |a theistic ersatzism 
652 |a NBC:NBF:VA 
700 1 |a Paul, Emily  |e VerfasserIn des Bezugswerks  |4 ant 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t TheoLogica  |d Louvain-la-Neuve : Presses Universitaires de Louvain, Université Catholique de Louvain, 2017  |g 3(2019), 2, Seite 140-151  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)1662480458  |w (DE-600)2967603-4  |x 2593-0265  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:3  |g year:2019  |g number:2  |g pages:140-151 
787 0 8 |i Kritik von  |a Paul, Emily  |t Incarnation, Divine Timelessness, and Modality  |d 2019  |w (DE-627)1663028109 
856 |u https://ojs.uclouvain.be/index.php/theologica/article/download/20543/20033  |x unpaywall  |z Vermutlich kostenfreier Zugang  |h publisher [oa journal (via doaj)] 
856 4 0 |u https://ojs.uclouvain.be/index.php/theologica/article/view/20543  |x Verlag  |z kostenfrei 
856 |u https://doi.org/10.14428/thl.v3i2.20543  |x doi  |3 Volltext 
936 u w |d 3  |j 2019  |e 2  |h 140-151 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 3639483901 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1696285178 
LOK |0 005 20220701101940 
LOK |0 008 200428||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-Tue135  |c DE-627  |d DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a ixzs  |a ixzo 
LOK |0 936ln  |0 1442051507  |a NBC 
LOK |0 936ln  |0 1442051787  |a NBF 
LOK |0 936ln  |0 1442053844  |a VA 
OAS |a 1 
ORI |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw 
REL |a 1 
SUB |a REL