| Abstract [eng] |
The Logical (Un)necessity of the Existence of God: An Analysis of A. Plantinga’s and R. Swinburne’s Arguments One of the aims of this thesis is to prove that A. Plantinga’s argument for the logical necessity of God’s existence is problematic as it is possible to construct an analogical counterargument with an equally reasonable premise. It also seeks to prove that A. Pruss’s and J. Rasmussen’s claim that R. Swinburne’s argument for the logical unnecessity of God’s and other objects’ existence falls under the same problem is unjustified. These issues are discussed by engaging in the philosophical controversy about the abovementioned A. Plantinga’s argument which is criticised by M. Tooley, J. Mackie, W. Rowe, T. Parent, etc. and supported by T. Morris, A. Pruss, C. Bernstein, etc., as well as in the controversy about the abovementioned R. Swinburne’s argument criticised by B. Leftow, A. Mbonimpa, A. Pruss, J. Rasmussen, etc. and more or less approved by P. Richmond and H. Philipse. The first element of the thesis is confirmed using J. Forgie’s, J. Mackie’s, W. Rowe’s insights concerning the A. Plantinga’s argument. The second element of the thesis is validated using R. Swinburne’s works to support the claim that A. Pruss’s and J. Rasmussen’s critique of R. Swinburne’s argument is unjustified. |
