On stage one of Feser's ‘Aristotelian proof’

  title={On stage one of Feser's ‘Aristotelian proof’},
  author={Graham Oppy},
  journal={Religious Studies},
  pages={491 - 502}
  • G. Oppy
  • Published 30 October 2019
  • Philosophy
  • Religious Studies
Abstract This article is a response to Ed Feser's claim that his ‘Aristotelian proof’ establishes that atheists have no part in ‘the real debate’. I argue that Feser (2017) nowhere establishes that Premises 4 and 7 in his ‘Aristotelian proof’ are anything more than claims about which he and his opponents – including atheists like me – disagree. In particular, I suggest that it is neither mysterious nor surprising that, by their own lights, atheists have more than sufficient reason to reject… 
Existential inertia and the Aristotelian proof
Edward Feser defends the ‘Aristotelian proof’ for the existence of God, which reasons that the only adequate explanation of the existence of change is in terms of an unchangeable, purely actual
Simply Unsuccessful: The Neo-Platonic Proof of God’s Existence
Edward Feser defends the ‘Neo-Platonic proof’ for the existence of the God of classical theism. After articulating the argument and a number of preliminaries, I first argue that premise three of
How many and why? A question for Graham Oppy that classical theism can answer
I argue that classical theism has a significant advantage as a theory of the First Cause over Graham Oppy's naturalistic account. This is because classical theism not only gives us a clear answer
Naturalism, classical theism, and first causes
Enric F. Gel has recently argued that classical theism enjoys a significant advantage over Graham Oppy's naturalism. According to Gel, classical theism – unlike Oppy's naturalism – satisfactorily
Oppy on Thomistic cosmological arguments
Abstract Graham Oppy has criticized several Thomistic versions of the cosmological argument in a series of publications over the years, most recently in a Religious Studies article responding to my