Abstract
Lataster has published another reply to my article on panentheism and classical theism. I should like to respond, first, by way of pointing out some problems in Lataster’s understanding of my argument before; second, I show that Lataster’s panentheistic counterexamples to my distinction to distinguish between classical theism and panentheism presuppose the very distinction he seeks to refute.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
Lataster seems to suppose that I have a disdain for ‘the notion that the world could literally reside in the body of God’. I have no disdain for this position. I am convinced that it is false that the universe is (a part of) the body of God.
I bracket the assumption that God does not exist if his body does not. If we assume this, then we have to find a cause for the existence of God because, in this case, the existence of God itself is contingent.
Reference
Baldner, S. & Carroll, W. E. (1997). Aquinas on Creation, Writings on the ‘Sentences’ of Peter Lombard, Book 2, Distinction 1, Question 1, translated with an introduction and notes by Steven E. Baldner & William E. Carroll. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Göcke, B.P. Another Reply to Raphael Lataster. SOPHIA 54, 99–102 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-015-0462-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-015-0462-4