Logical and Metaphysical Assumptions of Bernard Bolzano's Theodicy

Forum Philosophicum 12 (1):33 - 56 (2007)
Abstract
Bolzano’s theodicy is a very good example of Platonism in the philosophy of religion. Above all, Bolzano believes that there obtains an ideal realm of truths in themselves and mathematical objects, which are independent of God. Therefore, we are allowed to conclude that God is only a contractor; true, more powerful than Plato’s demiurge because He created substances and sustains them in existence, but God must follow a project which is independent of Him. Since the world is determined, by the program and God follows the program, then in fact the program is a god, or better, there is no God. Bolzano’s project is not related to God’s essence, since it is external to God, and is not made by God. Thus, Bolzano’s theodicy is also the absolute opposite of the Cartesian theodicy. God in the Cartesian theodicy can change all rules, all scientific laws and, in consequence, He can create any world He wants. Bolzano’s God cannot change anything and cannot create a different world than the world
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index Translate to english
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 9,351
External links This entry has no external links. Add one.
Through your library Configure
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Similar books and articles
Thomas Schärtl (2009). The Challenge of Theodicy and the Divine Access to the Universe. European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 1 (1):121 - 154.
Paul Rusnock (2012). Remarks on Bolzano's Conception of Necessary Truth. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 20 (4):1-21.
Richard Swinburne (1995). Theodicy, Our Well-Being, and God's Rights. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 38 (1-3):75 - 91.
Eric Roark (2006). Aquinas's Unsuccessful Theodicy. Philosophy and Theology 18 (2):247-256.
Richard Swinburne (1988). Does Theism Need a Theodicy? Canadian Journal of Philosophy 18 (2):287 - 311.
Eric Stencil (2011). Malebranche and the General Will of God. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 19 (6):1107 - 1129.
Analytics

Monthly downloads

Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.

Added to index

2012-06-17

Total downloads

0

Recent downloads (6 months)

0

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Start a new thread
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.