Craig’s Nominalism and the High Cost of Preserving Divine Aseity
AbstractWilliam Lane Craig rejects Platonism (the view that uncreated abstract objects (AOs) exist) in favor of nominalism because he believes Platonism fatally compromises God’s aseity. For Craig, concrete particulars (including essences) exist, but properties do not. Yet, we use property-talk, following Carnap’s “linguistic frameworks.” There is, however, a high cost to Craig’s view. I survey his views and then explore the importance of essences. But, next, I show that his nominalism undermines them. Thus, we have just interpretations of reality. Worse, nominalism undermines creation’s determinacy. Last, I suggest AOs are created, but in a more fundamental sense than Craig considers.
How to Cite
Smith, R. Scott. 2017. “Craig’s Nominalism and the High Cost of Preserving Divine Aseity”. European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 9 (1):87-107. https://doi.org/10.24204/ejpr.v9i1.1866.