Array
(
    [fullTitle] => Theism and Contrastive Explanation
    [abstract] => I argue that there could not be grounds on which to introduce God into our ontology. My argument presupposes two doctrines. First, we should allow into our ontology only what figures in the best explanation of an event or fact. Second, explanation is contrastive by nature, in that the explanandum always consists in a contrast between a fact and a foil. I argue that God could not figure in true contrastive explanatory statements, because the omnipotence of God guarantees that for any true proposition p, God could have made it the case that ~p just as much as He could have made it the case that p.
    [authors] => Array
        (
            [0] => Array
                (
                    [givenName] => Daniel
                    [affiliation] => University of Hull
                )

        )

    [keywords] => Array
        (
        )

    [doi] => 10.24204/ejpr.v9i1.1862
    [datePublished] => 2017-05-03
    [pdf] => https://www.philosophy-of-religion.eu/menuscript/index.php/ejpr/article/view/1862/version/419/1495
)
"Loading..."

Theism and Contrastive Explanation

Daniel
University of Hull

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24204/ejpr.v9i1.1862

Abstract

I argue that there could not be grounds on which to introduce God into our ontology. My argument presupposes two doctrines. First, we should allow into our ontology only what figures in the best explanation of an event or fact. Second, explanation is contrastive by nature, in that the explanandum always consists in a contrast between a fact and a foil. I argue that God could not figure in true contrastive explanatory statements, because the omnipotence of God guarantees that for any true proposition p, God could have made it the case that ~p just as much as He could have made it the case that p.

Keywords:

Download PDF