Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Refine search results

Journals help
Authors help
Years help

Results found: 2

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  RICHARD SWINBURNE
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Content available remote

Logika, wszechmoc, Bóg

100%
Filo-Sofija
|
2012
|
vol. 12
|
issue 4(19)
37-52
EN
Traditional theism (in Christianity, Judaism and Islam) understands God as possessing certain attributes including omnipotence. God is omnipotent in the sense that God possesses unlimited (maximal) power. For some classical philosophers and theologians (Petrus Damiani, René Descartes) God’s omnipotence requires his being able to do absolutely anything, including the logically impossible. But in Thomas Aquinas’ opinion, to do what is logically impossible is not an act of power but is self-contradictory action. For Aquinas, a logically impossible action is not an action. The contemporary British philosopher of religion, Richard Swinburne, considers omnipotence from an analytic perspective and, partially, within Aquinas’ tradition. For Swinburne, omnipotence includes the power to perform only logically possible and consistent tasks. In this paper, I discuss systematically (§§ 3-6) the philosophical and logical problems of omnipotence and the relation between God and logic from the perspective of Jan Łukasiewicz’s logical investigations.
Filo-Sofija
|
2012
|
vol. 12
|
issue 3(18)
293-322
EN
My paper presents a detailed analysis and assessment of Richard Dawkins’ epistemological theses from The God Delusion concerning the nature of religious belief, the existence of God and treating belief in God as a scientific hypothesis. In the first part of the article, I am interpreting Dawkins’ statement that atheism deserves respect as an epistemic achievement. I suggest that rationality of that assessment depends on Dawkins’ success in arguing that science shows that God does not exist. My second aim is to show that the real object of Dawkins’ attack is not some abstract theistic hypothesis, as he suggests, but the Western ethical monotheism, mainly the Christian faith in God. If I am right, then his rejection of thus interpreted theism is not enough to justify his more general thesis that God hypothesis is false or improbable. The first part of the paper prepares the ground for the second, with criticism of Dawkins’ reasoning to the conclusion that almost certainly there is no God.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.