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...
| 主要作者: | |
|---|---|
| 格式: | 電子 Article |
| 語言: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | 載入...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| 出版: |
Cambridge Univ. Press
2023
|
| In: |
Religious studies
Year: 2023, 卷: 59, 發布: 1, Pages: 63-77 |
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
有神論
/ 自然主義 (哲學)
/ 神存在的宇宙論論証
|
| IxTheo Classification: | AB Philosophy of religion; criticism of religion; atheism NBC Doctrine of God |
| Further subjects: | B
first cause
B Naturalism B Classical Theism B God B gap problem |
| 在線閱讀: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| 總結: | 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 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Religious studies
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1017/S0034412522000051 |