Paley’s Argument Revisited: Reply to Schupbach

Philosophia Christi 10 (2):443-450 (2008)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This paper is a reply to Jonah Schupbach's critique of a previous paper of mine on Paley's argument for design. (Bibliographical details for earlier publications are available in the paper.)

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.5840/pc200810235

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

Paley’s Inductive Inference to Design.Jonah N. Schupbach - 2005 - Philosophia Christi 7 (2):491-502.
Paley’s Argument for Design.Graham Oppy - 2002 - Philo 5 (2):161-173.
Paley's Teleological Argument and Its Significance.Bill Spencer - 2006 - Dialogue: Journal of Phi Sigma Tau 48 (2-3):62 - 65.
Paley’s design argument for God.Marvin Glass & Julian Wolfe - 1986 - Sophia 25 (2):17-19.
Paley's 'Proof' of the Existence of God.Hugh Chandler - manuscript
Makin's Ontological Argument (Again).Graham Oppy - 1993 - Philosophy 68 (264):234 - 239.
Paley before Hume: How Not to Teach the Design Argument.Mark T. Nelson - 2024 - American Philosophical Association Studies on Teaching Philosophy 24 (1):2-10.
From the Tristram Shandy Paradox to the Christmas Shandy Paradox: Reply to Oderberg.Graham Oppy - 2003 - Ars Disputandi 3:172-195.
On behalf of the fool.G. Oppy - 2011 - Analysis 71 (2):304-306.
Dismantling Paley’s Watch: Equivocation Regarding the Word “Order” in the Teleological Argument.Randall S. Firestone - 2020 - Open Journal of Philosophy 10 (1):155-186.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-09-21

Downloads
510 (#54,915)

6 months
104 (#58,737)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Graham Oppy
Monash University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references