ABSTRACT

A defense of William E Carroll has been offered, contending that his metaphysicalist understanding of divine creation - namely the continual conferral of ‘esse’ - is theologically justified. Here, I explain my position that Carroll confuses an ontological dependency of all creaturely things on God as source of all being with a causal dependency that accounts for how they are structured and behave. By contrast, Thomas Aquinas viewed creation as both an event and a process whereby God acts to produce the physical substance and intricate forms of the material world.

中文翻译：

---

伊格纳西奥·席尔瓦（Ignacio Silva）对托马斯·阿奎那（Thomas Aquinas）和威廉·卡洛尔（William E.

摘要

威廉·E·卡洛尔（William E Carroll）提出了辩护，认为他对神的创造的形而上学的理解（即“ esse”的连续授予）在神学上是合理的。在这里，我解释一下我的立场，即卡洛尔将所有生物事物的本体论依赖性（作为一切事物的来源）与上帝之间的因果关系相混淆，以因果关系来解释它们的结构和行为。相比之下，托马斯·阿奎那把创造既是一个事件，又是一个过程，在此过程中，上帝行事以产生物质世界的物质和复杂形式。