Hostname: page-component-cd4964975-598jt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-03-30T02:25:18.224Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Oppy on Thomistic cosmological arguments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 August 2021

Social Sciences Division, Pasadena City College, 1570 E. Colorado Blvd., Pasadena, CA, 91106, USA


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 book Five Proofs of the Existence of God. Here I reply to his criticisms, arguing that while Oppy raises important issues, a besetting weakness of his approach is a failure adequately to grapple with the metaphysical underpinnings of the arguments.

Original Article
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Davies, B. (1992) The Thought of Thomas Aquinas (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
Davies, B. (2006) The Reality of God and the Problem of Evil (London: Continuum).Google Scholar
Feser, E. (2009) Aquinas (Oxford: Oneworld Publications).Google Scholar
Feser, E. (2011) ‘Existential inertia and the five ways’, American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, 85, 237267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feser, E. (2014) Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction (Heusenstamm: Editiones Scholasticae).Google Scholar
Feser, E. (2017) Five Proofs of the Existence of God (San Francisco: Ignatius Press).Google Scholar
Kenny, A. (2002) Aquinas on Being (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
Kerr, G. (2015) Aquinas's Way to God: The Proof in De Ente et Essentia (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klima, G. (2004) ‘On Kenny on Aquinas on being’, International Philosophical Quarterly, 44, 567580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, C. F. J. (1997) Thomas Aquinas: God and Explanations (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press).Google Scholar
Oderberg, D. S. (2001) ‘How to win essence back from essentialists’, Philosophical Writings, 18, 2745.Google Scholar
Oderberg, D. S. (2010) ‘“Whatever is changing is being changed by something else”: a reappraisal of premise one of the first way’, in Cottingham, J. & Hacker, P. (eds) Mind, Method and Morality: Essays in Honour of Anthony Kenny (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 140164.Google Scholar
Oppy, G. (2006) Arguing about Gods (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppy, G. (2012) ‘Arguments for the existence of God’, in Marenbon, J. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Medieval Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 687704.Google Scholar
Oppy, G. (2018) Naturalism and Religion (London: Routledge).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppy, G. (2021) ‘On stage one of Feser's ‘Aristotelian proof’’, Religious Studies, 57, 491–502.Google Scholar
Smart, J. J. C. & Haldane, J. J. (2003) Atheism and Theism, 2nd edn (Oxford: Blackwell).CrossRefGoogle Scholar