Abstract
Edward Feser defends the ‘Neo-Platonic proof’ for the existence of the God of classical theism. After articulating the argument and a number of preliminaries, I first argue that premise three of Feser’s argument – the causal principle that every composite object requires a sustaining efficient cause to combine its parts – is both unjustified and dialectically ill-situated. I then argue that the Neo-Platonic proof fails to deliver the mindedness of the absolutely simple being and instead militates against its mindedness. Finally, I uncover two tensions between Trinitarianism and the Neo-Platonic proof and one tension between the Neo-Platonic proof (and, more generally, classical theism) and the incarnation.
Publisher
Verein zur Forderung der Fachzeitschrift European Journal for Philosophy of Religion
Subject
Philosophy,Religious studies
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Existential Inertia: Thesis and Taxonomy;Existential Inertia and Classical Theistic Proofs;2022-11-30
2. Existential Inertia: Motivations and Defense;Existential Inertia and Classical Theistic Proofs;2022-11-30
3. The Neo‐Classical Challenge to Classical Theism;Philosophy Compass;2022-07-20
4. Naturalism, classical theism, and first causes;Religious Studies;2022-04-04