No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 June 2011
In this paper, I shall be arguing for what I hope is a modern version of a very traditional view, which is that God can explain two very basic phenomena: the first is the existence of the universe as we know it: the second is the particular way in which the universe is organised. I shall also, though briefly, try to counter the view that the totally unwelcome features of our universe make it impossible to reconcile the universe as it is with anything like traditional theistic belief. This project, however, is quite a daunting one. So I would wish to make it clear right at the start that, while I would claim that my views are reasonable, and indeed more reasonable than belief in the denial of these views would be, I still do not hold that it is unreasonable for someone to reject each of the conclusions for which I shall argue. For plainly anyone, whether myself or any opponent, can be both reasonable and mistaken.
1 See Hintikka, Jaakko, ‘Aristotle's Infinity’, Philosophical Review 75 (1966/2), 107–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 Craig, William Lane, ‘The Kalam cosmological argument’, in Craig, William Lane (ed.) Philosophy of Religion: A Reader and Guide (Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, 2002), 92–113.Google Scholar