"But Krauss simply can’t see the “difference between arguing in favor of an eternally existing creator versus an eternally existing universe without one.” The difference, as the reader of Aristotle or Aquinas knows, is that the universe changes while the unmoved mover does not, or, as the Neoplatonist can tell you, that the universe is made up of parts while its source is absolutely one; or, as Leibniz could tell you, that the universe is contingent and God absolutely necessary. There is thus a principled reason for regarding God rather than the universe as the terminus of explanation. "
Monday, March 3, 2014
Not Understanding Nothing by Edward Feser
Not a glowing review of Krauss' book: Not Understanding Nothing by Edward Feser | Articles | First Things:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment