A pantheist in spite of himself: Craig, Hegel, and divine infinity
In his 2006 paper `Pantheists in Spite of Themselves: God and Infinity in Contemporary Theology,' William Lane Craig examines the work of Wolfhart Pannenberg, Philip Clayton, and F. LeRon Shults, whose conceptions of God are influenced by Hegel. Craig shows that these thinkers' Hegelian fo...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Springer Science + Business Media B. V
[2016]
|
| In: |
International journal for philosophy of religion
Year: 2016, Volume: 80, Issue: 3, Pages: 243-257 |
| Further subjects: | B
THOUGHT & thinking
B Pantheism B CLAYTON, Philip, 1956- B divine infinity B Craig B Hegel B Cantor B Hegelianism B REFUTATION (Logic) |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
MARC
| LEADER | 00000caa a22000002 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 1559353759 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20221110132823.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 170601s2016 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s11153-016-9564-3 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)1559353759 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-576)489353754 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)BSZ489353754 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rda | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 084 | |a 1 |a 0 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Dumke, Russell |e VerfasserIn |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 2 | |a A pantheist in spite of himself |b Craig, Hegel, and divine infinity |c Russell Dumke |
| 264 | 1 | |c [2016] | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a In his 2006 paper `Pantheists in Spite of Themselves: God and Infinity in Contemporary Theology,' William Lane Craig examines the work of Wolfhart Pannenberg, Philip Clayton, and F. LeRon Shults, whose conceptions of God are influenced by Hegel. Craig shows that these thinkers' Hegelian formulations lead to monism, despite their attempts to avoid it. He then attempts to refute Hegelian thinking by appealing to Cantor. I argue that that this refutation fails because Cantor and Hegel are far more amicable than Craig realizes, as Small's and Drozdek's work shows. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Cantor | |
| 650 | 4 | |a CLAYTON, Philip, 1956- | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Craig | |
| 650 | 4 | |a divine infinity | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Hegel | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Hegelianism | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Pantheism | |
| 650 | 4 | |a REFUTATION (Logic) | |
| 650 | 4 | |a THOUGHT & thinking | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t International journal for philosophy of religion |d Dordrecht [u.a.] : Springer Science + Business Media B.V, 1970 |g 80(2016), 3, Seite 243-257 |h Online-Ressource |w (DE-627)320442098 |w (DE-600)2005049-5 |w (DE-576)103746927 |x 1572-8684 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:80 |g year:2016 |g number:3 |g pages:243-257 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s11153-016-9564-3 |x Resolving-System |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 936 | u | w | |d 80 |j 2016 |e 3 |h 243-257 |
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| ELC | |a 1 | ||
| ITA | |a 1 |t 1 | ||
| LOK | |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 | ||
| LOK | |0 001 297085208X | ||
| LOK | |0 003 DE-627 | ||
| LOK | |0 004 1559353759 | ||
| LOK | |0 005 20170601162416 | ||
| LOK | |0 008 170601||||||||||||||||ger||||||| | ||
| LOK | |0 040 |a DE-Tue135 |c DE-627 |d DE-Tue135 | ||
| LOK | |0 092 |o n | ||
| LOK | |0 852 |a DE-Tue135 | ||
| LOK | |0 852 1 |9 00 | ||
| LOK | |0 935 |a ixzs |a ixzo | ||
| ORI | |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw | ||
| REL | |a 1 | ||
| SUB | |a REL | ||