Search results
Dr. Anderson defines “paradox” as “a set of claims which taken in conjunction appear to be logically inconsistent.” For the author “paradox” is “synonymous with apparent contradiction” (5-6). A paradox, then, is only apparently a contradiction. Yet, it is one that cannot seemingly be reconciled before the bar of human reason.
The essence of paradox is the appearance of contradiction, but not true contradiction. Anderson explains that he adopts this definition “so as not to beg any crucial questions about 103 Reviews the logical status of Christian doctrines” (p. 6).
1 The Lord of Non-Contradiction: An Argument for God from Logic James N. Anderson and Greg Welty What is the relationship between the laws of logic and the existence of God? Perhaps the most obvious thing to say is that there is an epistemological relationship between the two, such that
- 238KB
- 22
James Anderson and Greg Welty have resurrected an argument for God’s existence (Anderson and Welty 2011 ), which we will call the argument from logic. We present three lines of response against the …
James Anderson and Greg Welty have resurrected an argument for God’s existence (Anderson and Welty 2011), which we will call the argument from logic. We present three lines of response against the argument, involving the notion of necessity involved, the notion of intentionality involved, and then we pose a dilemma for divine concep-tualism.
- Alex Malpass
- 2021
Anderson argues that this move isn’t ad hoc because if God is incomprehensible (as nearly all Christians grant), then we should expect apparent contradictions to arise in our thinking and speaking about him.
People also ask
How do Anderson & Welty state the argument in premise/ conclusion form?
What if the law of non-contradiction did not exist?
Are there any problems with the Lord of non-contradiction?
Is non-contradiction metaphysically necessary?
May 15, 2017 · In this provocative and compelling book, Elizabeth Anderson argues that the failure to see this stems from long-standing confusions. These confusions explain why, despite all evidence to the contrary, we still talk as if free markets make workers free—and why so many employers advocate less government even while they act as dictators in their ...
