The nomological argument for the existence of God.

According to the Nomological Argument, observed regularities in nature are best explained by an appeal to a supernatural being. A successful explanation must avoid two perils. Some explanations provide too little structure, predicting a universe without regularities. Others provide too much structur...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Nous (0029-4624) Vol. 56; no. 2; pp. 443 - 473
Autores principales: Hildebrand, Tyler, Metcalf, Thomas
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Wiley-Blackwell Jun2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=157034800&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 157034800
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00294624
        D97
      jtl: Nous (0029-4624)
      issn: 00294624
      maglogo: Y
    pubinfo:
      dt: Jun2022
      vid: 56
      iid: 2
      pid: 480
      pub: Wiley-Blackwell
    artinfo:
      ui:
        157034800
        10.1111/nous.12364
      ppf: 443
      ppct: 30
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
              size: 375KB
      tig:
        atl: The nomological argument for the existence of God.
      aug:
        au:
          Hildebrand, Tyler
          Metcalf, Thomas
        affil:
          Department of Philosophy, Dalhousie University, Canada
          Department of Philosophy, Spring Hill College, Alabama, United States
      su:
        Supernatural beings
        Argument
        Proof of God
      sug:
        subj:
          Supernatural beings
          Argument
          Proof of God
      ab: According to the Nomological Argument, observed regularities in nature are best explained by an appeal to a supernatural being. A successful explanation must avoid two perils. Some explanations provide too little structure, predicting a universe without regularities. Others provide too much structure, thereby precluding an explanation of certain types of lawlike regularities featured in modern scientific theories. We argue that an explanation based in the creative, intentional action of a supernatural being avoids these two perils whereas leading competitors do not. Although our argument falls short of a full defense, it does suggest that the Nomological Argument is worthy of philosophical attention.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      custom: Copyright of Nous (0029-4624) is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
      item: Nous (0029-4624)
      holder: Wiley-Blackwell
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2022
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N