Paul Draper’s Review of Goetz and Taliaferro’s Naturalism

There are many gems in this review; here is one.

To begin with, the alleged advantage that metaphysical theists have because they attribute necessary existence to God is not real, since there is no more reason to believe that a concrete non-natural divine person can exist necessarily than there is to think that nature can exist necessarily. The ontological argument, almost everyone agrees, is a failure, and we cannot just “see” the necessity of the statement “God exists” in the way that we can just see the necessity of statements like “all dogs are dogs” or “2+1=3.” Lacking both proof and the support of rational intuition, surely one cannot gain an advantage for a metaphysical theory simply by building necessity into the theory.

LINK

"I think it'd be interesting to see one or even multiple SO blog posts responding ..."

Kreeft’s Case for God – Part ..."
"… to stop the infinite regression …Do you just accept infinite regression (that's one of ..."

Kreeft’s Case for God – Part ..."
"How would they show that? It actually seems easier to show the opposite:    If ethical imperatives ..."

Kreeft’s Case for God – Part ..."
"I have never said any of the arguments are irrelevant (don't matter). I have complimented ..."

Kreeft’s Case for God – Part ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment