上帝和孤独的世界

IF 0.2 3区 哲学 N/A RELIGION Irish Theological Quarterly Pub Date : 2023-01-13 DOI:10.1177/00211400221144750
Gaven Kerr
{"title":"上帝和孤独的世界","authors":"Gaven Kerr","doi":"10.1177/00211400221144750","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The recent aloneness argument against the classical conception of God seeks to undermine divine simplicity by showing that whatever way you cut it, there is some knowledge that God has contingently. That being the case, God has some contingent property not essential to Him, and if so, He is not utterly simple. The authors of the aloneness argument present it as a problem for any classical theist. In what follows, I seek to show that Aquinas’s conception of God avoids the challenge of the aloneness argument.","PeriodicalId":55939,"journal":{"name":"Irish Theological Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"God and the Alone World\",\"authors\":\"Gaven Kerr\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00211400221144750\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The recent aloneness argument against the classical conception of God seeks to undermine divine simplicity by showing that whatever way you cut it, there is some knowledge that God has contingently. That being the case, God has some contingent property not essential to Him, and if so, He is not utterly simple. The authors of the aloneness argument present it as a problem for any classical theist. In what follows, I seek to show that Aquinas’s conception of God avoids the challenge of the aloneness argument.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55939,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Irish Theological Quarterly\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Irish Theological Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00211400221144750\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"N/A\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Irish Theological Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00211400221144750","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"N/A","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近的孤独论反对上帝的经典概念,试图通过表明,无论你怎么看,上帝都有一些偶然的知识,来破坏上帝的简单性。在这种情况下,上帝有一些偶然的属性对他来说不是必要的,如果是这样,他就不是完全简单的。孤独论的作者把它作为一个问题呈现给任何古典有神论者。在接下来的内容中,我试图表明阿奎那的上帝概念避免了孤独论证的挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
God and the Alone World
The recent aloneness argument against the classical conception of God seeks to undermine divine simplicity by showing that whatever way you cut it, there is some knowledge that God has contingently. That being the case, God has some contingent property not essential to Him, and if so, He is not utterly simple. The authors of the aloneness argument present it as a problem for any classical theist. In what follows, I seek to show that Aquinas’s conception of God avoids the challenge of the aloneness argument.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
33.30%
发文量
44
期刊最新文献
Interpreting Mk 5: 25–34 in Solidarity with Women Who Have Experienced Pregnancy Loss Marrying Body and Theology: A Response to Thomas Finegan Book Review: Journeys of the Mind: A Life in History Is Pope Francis’s Social Teaching Post-Cardijn? The Judgment of the Nations: Structural Sin, Social Ontology, and Social Eschatology
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1