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...
| Published in: | Religious studies |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Cambridge Univ. Press
2023
|
| In: |
Religious studies
|
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
Theism
/ Naturalism (Philosophy)
/ Cosmological proof of God's existence
|
| RelBib 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 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Summary: | 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 |