Volume 17, Issue 2, 2015
Creation, Causality, and Abstracta
William Lane Craig
Response to Bridges and Van Inwagen
Bridges’s “moderate realism” is really a misnomer, since Aquinas’s view was that mathematical objects and universals are mere entia rationis, making Bridges’s view antirealist. The metaphysical idleness of properties on van Inwagen’s view ought to motivate reexamination of his presumed criterion of ontological commitment. Regarding paraphrastic strategies, one can meet van Inwagen’s challenge to provide a nominalistically acceptable paraphrase of Euclid’s proof of exactly five Platonic solids. Concerning fictionalism, van Inwagen should allow the anti-Platonist to treat abstracta as he treats supposed composite, inanimate objects. Finally, van Inwagen too quickly dismisses the absolute creationist view that abstracta can be effects, if not causes.