Naturalism, classical theism, and first causes
Enric F. Gel has recently argued that classical theism enjoys a significant advantage over Graham Oppy's naturalism. According to Gel, classical theism - unlike Oppy's naturalism - satisfactorily answers two questions: first, how many first causes are there, and second, why is it that numb...
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de documento: | Electrónico Artículo |
| Lenguaje: | Inglés |
| Verificar disponibilidad: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Gargar...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publicado: |
Cambridge Univ. Press
2023
|
| En: |
Religious studies
Año: 2023, Volumen: 59, Número: 1, Páginas: 63-77 |
| (Cadenas de) Palabra clave estándar: | B
Teísmo
/ Naturalismo (Filosofía)
/ Prueba cosmológica de la existencia de Dios
|
| Clasificaciones IxTheo: | AB Filosofía de la religión NBC Dios |
| Otras palabras clave: | B
first cause
B Naturalism B Classical Theism B God B gap problem |
| Acceso en línea: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Sumario: | Enric F. Gel has recently argued that classical theism enjoys a significant advantage over Graham Oppy's naturalism. According to Gel, classical theism - unlike Oppy's naturalism - satisfactorily answers two questions: first, how many first causes are there, and second, why is it that number rather than another? In this article, I reply to Gel's argument for classical theism's advantage over Oppy's naturalism. I also draw out wider implications of my investigation for the gap problem and Christian doctrine along the way. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1469-901X |
| Obras secundarias: | Enthalten in: Religious studies
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1017/S0034412522000051 |