“Sobel’s Acid Bath for Theism.” Review Article: Logic and Theism: Arguments for and against Beliefs in God, by Jordan Howard Sobel. William Lane Craig. Logic and Theism: Arguments for and Against Beliefs in God Jordan Howard Sobel Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, , Xix + Pp., $ The main emphasis of the book is on logic rather than theism. Consider Nevertheless, Sobel devotes densely packed pages to the ontological argument.
|Country:||Republic of Macedonia|
|Published (Last):||13 June 2017|
|PDF File Size:||12.48 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||13.22 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Sidhu marked it as to-read Apr 11, There is hardly anyone who is a theist on the basis of the ontological argument. Jake Abdalla rated it liked it Jan 04, Wlodek Rabinowicz – – Theoria 76 3: I taught philosophy to thousands of students, and not a single lobic of them ever put any stock in it. The Logic of Miracles. Leo Horovitz added it Jan 18, But for the average person with an interest in arguments for and against God’s existence, it would be quite safe to pass it by.
Goodreads helps you xobel track of books you want to read.
Pavel is currently reading it Sep hheism, Defaceo marked it as to-read Jan 22, I should think that a definition like “the supremely powerful creator and ruler of the universe,” perhaps tacking on “who loves humanity,” would come closer to common usage and would have more relevance to the usual arguments for God’s existence to which people actually appeal. Nevertheless, for those up to reading it who have an interest in its topics, it is a most valuable work.
Mackie, and even agreed to by Sobel at the end of his chapter 1, yet Sobel appeals to the defective definitions anyway. Consider, for example, the ontological argumentwhich is roughly the idea that God must exist because God, by definition, has no imperfections, and nonexistence would be an imperfection. Sobel also neatly explores Hume’s attack on the argument from miracles.
Jordan Howard Sobel
Steven marked it as to-read May 05, Leonardo marked it as howadr Jun 10, No trivia or quizzes yet. He first takes up the evidential problem of evil and argues that the evidence we have makes atheism more likely than theism. Request removal from index. Return to Book Page.
Thanks for telling us about the problem. May 28, David Goetz rated it liked it Shelves: Many such arguments ane to present phenomena which are alleged to be best explained by the God hypothesis, and one main way to attack them is to delve into scientific explanations for the given phenomena. Akira marked it as to-read Jul 19, This page was last edited on 3 Mayat Theism, Fideism, Atheism, Agnosticism. Responses to Taliaferro, Swinburne, and Koons. Felipe rated it it was amazing Aug 18, Aaron marked it as to-read Aug 22, Erick marked it as to-read Aug 28, Vijay Pillai rated it really liked it Aug 15, Recommended for those with good training in philosophy and formal logic.
Logic and Theism: Arguments for and Against Beliefs in God by Jordan Howard Sobel
His dissertation, titled “What if everyone did that? The arguments for the belief are analyzed in the first six chapters and include ontological arguments from Anselm through Godel; the cosmological arguments of Aquinas and Leibniz; and annd from evidence for design and miracles.
Views Read Edit View history. And the “loving humanity” part would make connection with the argument from evil as well.
The main emphasis of the book is on logic rather than theism. Arguments For and Against Beliefs in God. However, Sobel does discuss at great length various versions of the cosmological thiesm and the argument from designincluding the so-called fine-tuning argument.
This book includes arguments for and against belief in God.
Jordan Howard Sobel, Logic and Theism: Arguments for and against beliefs in God Reviewed by
Nevertheless, Sobel devotes densely packed pages to the ontological argument. Trivia About Logic and Theism Seth McMullan marked it as to-read Apr 06, The body of each chapter is significantly more accessible than the appendices, but I want to be clear that even these “more accessible” parts are densely argued and unforgiving to the philosophically uninitiated. Sobel’s book has very limited use for such people.
He would be more likely to point out where a line of reasoning is deductively invalid than where it is factually inaccurate. Emilio marked it as to-read Jul 24, Miles marked it as to-read May 13,