English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Since I basically agree with everything Gavin Kerr had to say in his book, this paper is not going to offer any criticism of the way he treats Aquinas’ argument. Instead, this paper offers an alternative way of reconstructing Aquinas’ argument, intending to strengthen it especially in those controversial aspects of it that Kerr’s reconstruction left untreated or in relative obscurity. Accordingly, although my treatment will have to have some overlaps with Kerr’s (such as my response to Kenny’s critique of Aquinas), it will deal with issues essential to adequate replies to certain competent criticisms of his argument untreated by Kerr (such as Buridan’s critique). For the sake of the “formally inclined” reader, my treatment will also include an Appendix offering a formal reconstruction of both the main argument and its subarguments to demonstrate the formal rigor of Aquinas’ original. Since Aquinas’ argument would obviously fall under what Kant called a “cosmological argument,” we should start its discussion with clarifying what a cosmological argument is and what the most vulnerable aspects of this type of argumentation can be. A “cosmological argument” is one that argues from the obvious existence of something other than God for the existence of God as its first efficient cause. This sort of reasoning can be vitiated by two main types of objection. The first, which I will refer to as the “self-sufficiency objection,” argues that the obvious existence of the thing the cosmological argument refers to does

Aquinas’s Real Distinction and Its Role in a Causal Proof of God’s Existence