On the Argument from Divine Arbitrariness
William Rowe in his Can God be Free? (2004) argues that God, if there is a God, necessarily chooses the best. Combined with the premise that there is no best act of creation, this provides an a priori argument for atheism. Rowe assumes that necessarily God is a ‘morally unsurpassable’ being, and it...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Electronic Article |
Language: | English |
Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
Journals Online & Print: | |
Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
Published: |
Springer Netherlands
2012
|
In: |
Sophia
Year: 2012, Volume: 51, Issue: 3, Pages: 341-349 |
Further subjects: | B
Choice
B Argument from evil B Perfection B Rowe B Arbitrariness B God B Buridan's ass |
Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
Summary: | William Rowe in his Can God be Free? (2004) argues that God, if there is a God, necessarily chooses the best. Combined with the premise that there is no best act of creation, this provides an a priori argument for atheism. Rowe assumes that necessarily God is a ‘morally unsurpassable’ being, and it is for that reason that God chooses the best. In this article I drop that assumption and I consider a successor to Rowe’s argument, the Argument from Arbitrariness, based on the premise that God does not act arbitrarily. My chief conclusion will be that this argument fails because, for all we know, there can be non-arbitrary divine choices even if there is no best act of creation. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1873-930X |
Contains: | Enthalten in: Sophia
|
Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1007/s11841-011-0287-8 |