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...
| Autore principale: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo di documento: | Elettronico Articolo |
| Lingua: | Inglese |
| Verificare la disponibilità: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Caricamento...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Pubblicazione: |
Cambridge Univ. Press
2023
|
| In: |
Religious studies
Anno: 2023, Volume: 59, Fascicolo: 1, Pagine: 63-77 |
| (sequenze di) soggetti normati: | B
Teismo
/ Naturalismo (Filosofia)
/ Prova cosmologica dell'esistenza di Dio
|
| Notazioni IxTheo: | AB Filosofia delle religioni NBC Dio |
| Altre parole chiave: | B
first cause
B Naturalism B Classical Theism B God B gap problem |
| Accesso online: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Riepilogo: | 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 |
| Comprende: | Enthalten in: Religious studies
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1017/S0034412522000051 |