Religious Studies 42 (4):403-416 (2006)
According to an important set of medieval arguments, it is impossible to make a distinction between creation and conservation on the assumption of a beginningless universe. The argument is that, on such an assumption, either God is never causally sufficient for the existence of the universe, or, if He is at one time causally sufficient for the existence of the universe, He is at all times causally sufficient for the universe, and occasionalism is true. I defend the claim that these arguments are successful. Since Christian theology requires a distinction between creation and conservation, arguments in favour of the possible eternity of the world fail.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Similar books and articles
Against Proclus' "on the Eternity of the World, 1-.John Philoponus - 2004 - Cornell University Press.
Theological Misinterpretations of Current Physical Cosmology.Adolf Grünbaum - 1998 - Philo 1 (1):15-34.
The Creation–Conservation Dilemma and Presentist Four-Dimensionalism.William F. Vallicella - 2002 - Religious Studies 38 (2):187-200.
On the Distinction Between Creation and Conservation: A Partial Defence of Continuous Creation.Timothy D. Miller - 2009 - Religious Studies 45 (4):471-485.
Ghazali on the Creation Vs. Eternity of the World.Raja Bahlul - 1992 - Philosophy and Theology 6 (3):259-275.
Proofs for Eternity, Creation, and the Existence of God in Medieval Islamic and Jewish Philosophy.Herbert A. Davidson - 1987 - Oxford University Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads54 ( #96,325 of 2,163,687 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #62,626 of 2,163,687 )
How can I increase my downloads?