2004
Volume 62, Issue 3
  • ISSN: 2542-6583
  • E-ISSN: 2590-3268

Abstract

In their reply to my ‘Religious Belief in the Age of Science', called ‘A Failing Atheistic Argument’, Rik Peels and René van Woudenberg commit the same logical errors that I already pointed out in that article, and some new ones. They overlook the restrictions on the domain of the destructive dilemma supporting my atheistic position, they confuse two different notions of ‘fact’, they assume, mistakenly, that a proposition to the effect that God exists can be logically necessary, and they are confused about multiple causal explanations of the same event. The relevant points of logic are elucidated and it is concluded again that my argument for atheism has not been undermined by their criticisms.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/NTT2008.62.203.PHIL
2008-08-01
2021-10-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/NTT2008.62.203.PHIL
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error