![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Merely note that the arguments I am defending differ in several ways from the Note that atheists who raise a certain sort of objection against first causeĪrguments would complain if a parallel objection were raised against evolution In the first place, I merely note that theĪrguments I am defending are in several ways different from Paley’s designĬite Paley in a long list of philosophers who have defending theisticĭesign theory in exactly two places in the book, at p. Question, it doesn’t follow that he will have to reject the argument fromĪll, it simply isn’t true that the book describes Paley or Intelligent Design Philosophy and thus rejects these particular responses to the criticisms in Now, if the reader in question rejects A-T Or he might defend PSR by reference to the Scholastic idea that truth isĬonvertible with being, so that whatever has being must be intelligible. For example, he might say that the worldĬannot be a necessary being because it is a compound of actuality and Objections in a way other philosophers would not. That is the necessary being, or such as a challenge to PSR. Suppose the reader is then presented with various objections to theĪrgument, such as the suggestion that it is the world itself rather than God That appeals to the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) but makes no reference Suppose that some reader is initially convinced by an argument from contingency ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |