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

"It seems to me that the Argument from Contingency uses some misleading nomenclature, because "necessary" ..."

Kreeft’s Case for God – Part ..."
"Rather than ask clarification on words, you could just ask him to re-write his argument ..."

Kreeft’s Case for God – Part ..."
"I've noticed a simple problem with proposition 1c: "...if that thing depends on something else ..."

Kreeft’s Case for God – Part ..."
"Your suggestion would be more tempting if there were just one or two unclear words ..."

Kreeft’s Case for God – Part ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment