Edwards – Moral Necessity

1. Moral Necessity may be as absolute as natural Necessity. That is, the effect may be as perfectly connected with its moral cause, as a natural, necessary effect is with its natural cause. Whether the Will in every case is necessarily determined by the strongest motive, or whether the Will ever makes any resistance to such a motive, or can ever oppose the strongest present inclination, or not; if that matter should be controverted, yet I suppose none will deny, but that, in some cases, a previous bias and inclination, or the motive presented, may be so powerful, that the … Continue reading Edwards – Moral Necessity

Are all infinite regresses bad?

http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2008/11/infinite-regresses-vicious-benign-virtuous.html http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2010/01/another-example-of-a-vicious-infinite-regress-philosophical-investigations-sec-239.html http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2008/11/vicious-and-benign-regresses-again.html http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2014/04/infinite-regresses-vicious-and-benign.html Continue reading Are all infinite regresses bad?

Doxastic vs Nondoxastic theories

In reading about the debates in Epistemology you run across terms like Doxastic and Nondoxastic. These usually show up in discussing the issue of justification. These terms are helpful in classifying different positions in this debate and are important for you to know. Doxastic deals with beliefs. You may read or hear it put as the “Doxastic assumption”. The doxastic assumption (from the Greek doxa, “belief”) refers to the view that the sole factor that justifies a belief for a person is the other beliefs that the person holds. James Porter Moreland; William Lane Craig. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian … Continue reading Doxastic vs Nondoxastic theories