Bookmark and Share

Arguments for Theism

Edited by Daniel von Wachter (International Academy of Philosophy)
About this topic
Summary Theism is generally taken to be the view that there is a person who is bodiless, omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, perfectly good, perfectly free, and who is the creator and sustainer of the universe. There are of course  different ways to spell out these attributes, for example some spell out ‘eternal‘ as ‘being outside of time‘, others as ‘everlasting‘. However, those who present arguments for or against the ‘existence of God‘ use the term ‘God’ similarly enough to be discussing the same question. Philosophers rather say that there is no God than using ‘God’ in a very different sense, for example in the sense of something other than a person. Most or all arguments for or against theism, today as well as in the past, are not assumed to make belief in God somehow ‘apodictically‘ certain. However, some arguments are deductive, others inductive.
Key works The most thorough defense of the existence of God is Swinburne 2004, who gives probabilistic, inductive instead of deductive arguments and who rejects the ontological as well as the moral argument from the existence of values or duties. Plantinga 1992 defends the ontological argument, Adams 1979 the moral argument. Mackie 1982 is still a much quoted defense of atheism. Rowe 2010 presents an atheistic position.
Introductions Most anthologies with the title ‘philosophy of religion’ contain articles that give the various arguments, for example Craig 2002 or Davies 2000, and also Copan & Meister 2007, Taliaferro & Meister 2010, and Copan & Moser 2003. A simplified defense of theism with various arguments is Swinburne 1996, Le Poidevin 1996 is an introductory defense atheism.
  Show all references
Related categories
Subcategories:See also:History/traditions: Arguments for Theism
397 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Sort by:
1 — 50 / 397
Material to categorize
  1. Neal C. Gillespie (1990). The Interface of Natural Theology and Science in the Ethology of W. H. Thorpe. Journal of the History of Biology 23 (1):1 - 38.
    It should be clear by now the extent to which many features of Thorpe's interpretation of animal behavior and of the animal mind rested, at bottom, not simply on conventional scientific proofs but on interpretive inferences, which in turn rested on a willingress to make extensions of human experience to animals. This, in turn, rested on his view of evolution and his view of reality. And these were governed by his natural theology, which was the fundamental stratum of his intellectual (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Jason Megill (2014). Hume, Causation and Two Arguments Concerning God. European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 6 (2).
    In Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Hume (1779/1993) appeals to his account of causation (among other things) to undermine certain arguments for the existence of God. If 'anything can cause anything', as Hume claims, then the Principle of Causal Adequacy is false; and if the Principle of Causal Adequacy is false, then any argument for God's existence that relies on that principle fails. Of course, Hume's critique has been influential. But Hume's account of causation undermines the argument from evil at least (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. John Smith (1660/1979). Select Discourses. Scholar’s Facsimiles and Reprints.
    Reprinted with Introduction by C. A. Patrides. Delmar, NY: Scholar’s Facsimiles and Reprints, 1979.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
Arguments from Miracles
  1. Matthew C. Bagger (1997). Hume and Miracles. Journal of the History of Philosophy 35 (2):237 - 251.
    "Hume and Miracles" relates Hume’s essay "Of Miracles" to the Port-Royal ’Logic’ and John Locke. It argues that Hume did not, as is often supposed, intend to suggest that well-attested miracle reports defeat themselves by undermining the laws of nature they defy. Instead, Hume argues that the specifically ’religious’ nature of the testimony relating to miracle claims rules out their acceptance because of the frequency of fraud in religious matters. Hume’s views are too austere because one might wish to reject (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. David Basinger (1990). Miracles as Evidence for Theism. Sophia 29 (1):56 - 59.
    In an ongoing dialogue, Robert Larmer and I have been discussing whether the undisputed occurrence of certain conceivable events would require all honest, thoughtful individuals to acknowledge that God has intervened in earthly affairs. I argue that there is no reason to believe that a nontheist who acknowledged certain healings to be strong evidence for theism but did not see such evidence as outweighing what she viewed as the stronger counterevidence, and thus remained a nontheist, could justifiably be accused of (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Tristan Casabianca (2013). The Shroud of Turin: A Historiographical Approach. Heythrop Journal 54 (3):414-423.
    Criteria of historical assessment are applied to the Turin Shroud to determine which hypothesis relating to the image formation process is the most likely. To implement this, a ‘Minimal Facts’ approach is followed that takes into account only physicochemical and historical data receiving the widest consensus among contemporary scientists. The result indicates that the probability of the Shroud of Turin being the real shroud of Jesus of Nazareth is very high; historians and natural theologians should therefore pay it increased attention.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. William Lane Craig & J. P. Moreland (eds.) (2009). The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Blackwell Pub.
    Each of the in-depth essays explores at length a particular theistic argument - from Contingency and Consciousness to Reason and Religious Experience - with the ...
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Hent de Vries (2001). Of Miracles and Special Effects. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 50 (1-3):41 - 56.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Yiftach J. H. Fehige (2008). Review Of: O. Gingerich: God’s Universe. [REVIEW] Logical Analysis and History of Philosophy 11:232-234.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. William Grey (1993). Hume, Miracles, and the Paranorrnal. Cogito 7 (2):100-105.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Daniel Howard-Snyder (2003). On Hume's Philosophical Case Against Miracles. In Christopher Bernard (ed.), God Matters: Readings in the Philosophy of Religion. Longman Publications.
    According to the Christian religion, Jesus was “crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again”. I take it that this rising again—the Resurrection of Jesus, as it’s sometimes called—is, according to the Christian religion, an historical event, just like his crucifixion, death, and burial. And I would have thought that to investigate whether the Resurrection occurred, we would need to do some historical research: we would need to assess the reliability of (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Robert Larmer (1999). Miracles As Evidence for God. In God and Argument. Univ Ottawa Pr.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. K. T. Maslin (1995). David Hume, 'of Miracles'. Cogito 9 (1):83-89.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Timothy McGrew & Lydia McGrew (2009). The Argument From Miracles: A Cumulative Case for the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. In William Lane Craig & J. P. Moreland (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Blackwell Pub. 593--662.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Peter Millican, Hume, Miracles, and Probabilities: Meeting Earman's Challenge.
    The centrepiece of Earman’s provocatively titled book Hume’s Abject Failure: The Argument against Miracles (OUP, 2000) is a probabilistic interpretation of Hume’s famous ‘maxim’ concerning the credibility of miracle reports, followed by a trenchant critique of the maxim when thus interpreted. He argues that the first part of this maxim, once its obscurity is removed, is simply trivial, while the second part is nonsensical. His subsequent discussion culminates with a forthright challenge to any would-be defender of Hume to ‘point (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. N. N. (2005). Review of The Resurrection of God Incarnate. [REVIEW] Faith and Philosophy 22 (2):235 - 238.
    Whether or not Jesus rose bodily from the dead remains perhaps the most critical and contentious issue in Christianity. Until now, argument has centered upon the veracity of explicit New Testament accounts of the events following Jesus’ crucifixion, often ending in deadlock. In Richard Swinburne’s new approach, though, ascertaining the probable truth of the resurrection requires a much broader approach to the nature of God and to the life and teaching of Jesus. (publisher, edited).
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Douglas Odegard (1982). Miracles and Good Evidence. Religious Studies 18 (1):37-46.
    EVEN IF ’MIRACLE’ MEANS A VIOLATION OF A LAW OF NATURE, A CASE CAN BE MADE FOR THINKING THAT MIRACLES ARE POSSIBLE, DETECTABLE, AND COMPATIBLE WITH SCIENCE. THE CASE WORKS BY DEFINING A LAW-VIOLATION AS AN EVENT OF A KIND THAT IS EPISTEMICALLY IMPOSSIBLE UNLESS THERE IS GOOD EVIDENCE OF A GOD’S PRODUCING AN INSTANCE. HUMAN AND NON-HUMAN OBJECTIONS ARE CONSIDERED AND ANSWERED.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Christine Overall (2006). Miracles, Evidence, Evil, and God: A Twenty-Year Debate. Dialogue 45 (2):355-366.
    This paper is the latest in a debate with Robert Larmer as to whether the occurrence of a miracle would provide evidence for the existence of God or against the existence of God. Whereas Larmer’s view is categorical (miracles occur and are evidence for the existence of God), mine is hypothetical (if the events typically described as miracles were to occur -- although I do not believe they do -- they would be evidence against the existence of God). The reason (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Christine Overall (1985). Miracles as Evidence Against the Existence of God. Southern Journal of Philosophy 23 (3):347-353.
    AN ASSUMPTION IN DEBATES ABOUT THE PHILOSOPHICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF MIRACLES IS THAT IF A MIRACLE (A VIOLATION OF NATURAL LAW OR A PERMANENTLY INEXPLICABLE EVENT) WERE TO OCCUR, IT WOULD BE EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE CHRISTIAN GOD. THE PAPER EXPLORES RESERVATIONS BY SEVERAL PHILOSOPHERS ABOUT THIS CONNECTION BETWEEN GOD AND MIRACLES, AND PRESENTS ARGUMENTS TO SHOW THAT IF A MIRACLE WERE TO OCCUR THERE WOULD BE GOOD REASON TO DENY THAT GOD EXISTS.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Terence Penelhum (2004). Review of Robert J. Fogelin, A Defense of Hume on Miracles, Princeton. [REVIEW] Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2004 (1).
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Richard L. Purtill (1976). Proofs of Miracles and Miracles as Proofs. Christian Scholar’s Review 6.
    AS AGAINST HUME’S VIEW THAT "A MIRACLE CAN NEVER BE PROVED SO AS TO BE THE FOUNDATION OF A SYSTEM OF RELIGION" I ARGUE THAT THE POSSIBILITY OF MIRACLES CAN BE DEFENDED ON PHILOSOPHICAL GROUNDS, THAT THERE IS HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE OCCURRENCE OF CERTAIN MIRACLES AND THAT SUCH MIRACLES CAN IN FACT GIVE GROUNDS FOR THE PREFERENCE OF ONE SYSTEM OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF OVER ANOTHER.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Victor Reppert (1989). Miracles and the Case for Theism. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 25 (1):35 - 51.
    THIS PAPER IS A DISCUSSION OF MACKIE’S HUMEAN ARGUMENT THAT MIRACLES CANNOT PLAY A ROLE IN A CASE FOR THEISM. I ARGUE THAT MACKIE IS MISTAKEN IN CONTENDING THAT MIRACLES CANNOT FORM PART OF A CASE FOR THEISM. IF THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT CERTAIN EVENTS DEVIATE FROM THE ORDINARY COURSE OF NATURE, AND IF AFFIRMING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD WOULD RENDER THAT EVIDENCE MORE COMPREHENSIBLE THAN OTHERWISE, THEN IT MUST BE ADMITTED THAT EVIDENCE THAT THESE EVENTS HAVE OCCURRED IS EVIDENCE (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Jordan Howard Sobel (2004). Logic and Theism: Arguments for and Against Beliefs in God. Cambridge University Press.
    This is a wide-ranging book about arguments for and against belief in God.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. James E. Taylor (2007). Hume on Miracles: Interpretation and Criticism. Philosophy Compass 2 (4):611–624.
    Philosophers continue to debate about David Hume’s case against the rationality of belief in miracles. This article clarifies semantic, epistemological, and metaphysical questions addressed in the controversy. It also explains the main premises of Hume’s argument and discusses criticisms of them. The article concludes that one’s evaluation of Hume’s argument will depend on one’s views about (a) the definitions of ’miracle’ and ’natural law’; (b) the type of reasoning one ought to employ to determine the probability that a particular miracle (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. J. C. Thornton (1984). Miracles and God's Existence. Philosophy 59 (228):219 - 229.
    THE AUTHOR ARGUES THAT THE HUMEAN "A PRIORI" ATTACK ON MIRACLES IS INTENDED TO SHOW THE INCOHERENCE OF THE NOTION OF A WELL-ATTESTED MIRACULOUS EVENT (NOT THE INCOHERENCE OF THE CONCEPT OF A MIRACLE). THOUGH THIS TYPE OF ATTACK CAN BE PRESENTED IN A POWERFUL FORM, IT SUFFERS FROM AN UNDULY NARROW ASSUMPTION CONCERNING THE NATURE OF EVIDENCE AND EXPLANATION, FOR IT "IS" POSSIBLE TO DESCRIBE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH IT WOULD BE REASONABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT A MIRACLE HAS OCCURRED. HOWEVER, (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
Cosmological Arguments for Theism
  1. B. A. (1998). Philip E. Devine. Human Diversity and the Culture Wars: Philosophical Perspectives on Contemporary Cultural Conflict. (Wesport, Connecticut: Praeger.) Pp. 192. £43.95. [REVIEW] Religious Studies 34 (2):231-234.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. James Cain (1995). The Hume-Edwards Principle. Religious Studies 31 (3):323 - 328.
    The Leibniz-Clarke version of the cosmological argument allows for the possibility that there might be a beginningless succession of objects, each produced by earlier objects in the succession, but it is held that a causal question would then arise as to what brought this whole succession of objects into being. This line of thought is commonly said to be confused and an appeal is made to a principle that if a causal explanation has been provided for each member of a (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Robin Collins, Objections to Smith's Cosmological Argument (2008).
    In his opening case , Quentin Smith has presented an ingenious argument for the claim that the universe is self caused, and hence its existence is self explanatory. He then goes on to claim that the fact that the universe is self caused, and hence self explanatory, is inconsistent with theism. His main argument is based on the assumption that each temporal part of the universe has an explanation in terms of the temporal parts existing prior to it. The fundamental (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. William Lane Craig (1978). A Further Critique of Reichenbach's Cosmological Argument. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 9 (1):53 - 60.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Houston Craighead (1975). The Cosmological Argument: Assessment of a Reassessment. [REVIEW] International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 6 (2):117 - 124.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Kevin Davey & Rob Clifton (2001). Insufficient Reason in the ‘New Cosmological Argument’. Religious Studies 37 (4):485-490.
    In a recent article in this journal, Richard Gale and Alexander Pruss offer a new cosmological proof for the existence of God relying only on the Weak Principle of Sufficient Reason, W-PSR. We argue that their proof relies on applications of W-PSR that cannot be justified, and that our modal intuitions simply do not support W-PSR in the way Gale and Pruss take them to.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Stephen T. Davis (1992). Hierarchical Causes in the Cosmological Argument. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 31 (1):13 - 27.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Jan Dejnozka (1989). Zeno's Paradoxes and the Cosmological Argument. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 25 (2):65 - 81.
    I SHOW THAT THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT OF AQUINAS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD COMMITS A RATHER TRIVIAL LINGUISTIC FALLACY, BY SHOWING THAT (1) SOME OF ZENO'S PARADOXES COMMIT A TRIVIAL LINGUISTIC FALLACY, AND THAT (2) THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT IS SUFFICIENTLY SIMILAR TO THESE PARADOXES THAT IT COMMITS THE SAME FALLACY. COPLESTON'S VIEW THAT "MENTION OF THE MATHEMATICAL INFINITE SERIES IS IRRELEVANT" TO "ANY" OF AQUINAS'S ARGUMENTS FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE IS THUS SHOWN FALSE.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Clement Dore (1983). Rowe on the Cosmological Argument. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 14 (1):25 - 31.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Richard M. Gale & Alexander R. Pruss (2002). A Response to Oppy, and to Davey and Clifton. Religious Studies 38 (1):89-99.
    Our paper ‘A new cosmological argument’ gave an argument for the existence of God making use of the weak Principle of Sufficient Reason (W-PSR) which states that for every proposition p, if p is true, then it is possible that there is an explanation for p. Recently, Graham Oppy, as well as Kevin Davey and Rob Clifton, have criticized the argument. We reply to these criticisms. The most interesting kind of criticism in both papers alleges that the W-PSR can be (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Richard M. Gale & Alexander R. Pruss (1999). A New Cosmological Argument. Religious Studies 35 (4):461-476.
    We will give a new cosmological argument for the existence of a being who, although not proved to be the absolutely perfect God of the great Medieval theists, also is capable of playing the role in the lives of working theists of a being that is a suitable object of worship, adoration, love, respect, and obedience. Unlike the absolutely perfect God, the God whose necessary existence is established by our argument will not be shown to essentially have the divine perfections (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (10 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Jerome Gellman (2000). Prospects for a Sound Stage 3 of Cosmological Arguments. Religious Studies 36 (2):195-201.
    Recently, "Religious Studies" published an article by Richard Gale and Alexander Pruss, arguing that there exists a necessary being who is a creator of the world. Building on their argument, I argue that, assuming that there is exactly one creator, that creator is essentially omnipotent.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Tyron Goldschmidt (2011). The New Cosmological Argument: O'Connor on Ultimate Explanation. Philosophia 39 (2):267-288.
    Timothy O’Connor presents a novel and powerful version of the cosmological argument from contingency. What distinguishes his argument is that it does not depend on the Principle of Sufficient Reason. This version thus avoids powerful objections facing the Principle. We present and develop the argument, strengthening it in various ways. We fill in big gaps in the argument and answer criticisms. These include the criticisms that O’Connor considers as well as new criticisms. We explain how his replies to a Kantian (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Daniel Howard-Snyder & Jeff Jordan (eds.) (1996). Faith, Freedom, and Rationality: Philosophy of Religion Today. Rowman and Littlefield.
    This collection of essays is dedicated to William Rowe, with great affection, respect, and admiration. The philosophy of religion, once considered a deviation from an otherwise analytically rigorous discipline, has flourished over the past two decades. This collection of new essays by twelve distinguished philosophers of religion explores three broad themes: religious attitudes of faith, belief, acceptance, and love; human and divine freedom; and the rationality of religious belief. Contributors include: William Alston, Robert Audi, Jan Cover, Martin Curd, Peter van (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Robert C. Koons (1997). A New Look at the Cosmological Argument. American Philosophical Quarterly 34 (2):193 - 211.
    The cosmological argument for God’s existence has a long history, but perhaps the most influential version of it has been the argument from contingency. This is the version that Frederick Copleston pressed upon Bertrand Russell in their famous debate about God’s existence in 1948 (printed in Russell’s 1957 Why I am not a Christian). Russell’s lodges three objections to the Thomistic argument.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Brian Leftow (1989). A Leibnizian Cosmological Argument. Philosophical Studies 57 (2):135 - 155.
    I explicate and defend leibniz's argument from "eternal truths" to the existence of god. I argue that necessary beings can be caused to exist, Showing how one can apply a counterfactual analysis to such causation, Then argue that if such beings can be caused to exist, They are.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Brian Leftow (1988). A Modal Cosmological Argument. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 24 (3):159 - 188.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, The Ultimate Origin of Things.
    Beyond the world, i.e. beyond the collection of finite things, there is some one being who rules, not only as the soul is the ruler in me (or, to put it better, as the self is the ruler in my body), but also in a much higher way. For the one being who rules the universe doesn’t just •govern the world but also •builds or makes it. He is above the world and outside it, so to speak, and therefore he (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Mogens Lærke (2011). Leibniz's Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 93 (1):58-84.
    In this article, I discuss Leibniz's interpretation of the cosmological argument for the existence of God. In particular, I consider whether Leibniz's position on this point was developed partly in reference to Spinoza's position. First, I analyze Leibniz's annotations from 1676 on Spinoza's Letter 12. The traditional cosmological argument, as found in Avicenna and Saint Thomas for example, relies on the Aristotelian assumption that an actual infinite is impossible and on the idea that there can be no effect without a (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Richard T. McClelland & Robert J. Deltete (2000). Divine Causation. Faith and Philosophy 17 (1):3-25.
    Quentin Smith has argued that it is logically impossible for there to be a divine cause of the universe. His argument is based on a Humean analysis of causation (confined to event causation, specifically excluding any consideration of agency) and a principle drawn from that analysis that he takes to be a logical requirement for every possibly valid theory of causation. He also thinks that all divine volitions are efficacious of logical necessity. We argue that all of these claims are (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Quentin Smith, A Cosmological Argument for a Self Caused Universe (2008).
    I intend to argue for the conclusion that the universe, be it infinitely old or finitely old, causes itself. One might object that no such argument could possibly succeed, because the claim that "the universe causes itself" is incoherent. I agree that this claim is incoherent if it is understood to mean that one individual, the universe, causes that same individual to come into existence. No individual can bring about its own existence, because no individual can bring about anything unless (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Eleonore Stump (1983). The Cosmological Argument From Plato to Leibniz. Review of Metaphysics 36 (3):701-703.
  23. Richard Swinburne (1996). The Beginning of the Universe and of Time. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 26 (2):169 - 189.
    Given four modest verificationist theses, tying the meaning of talk about instants and periods to the events which (physically) could occur during, before or after them, the only content to the claim the Universe had a beginning (applicable equally to chaotic or orderly universes) is in terms of it being preceded by empty time. It follows that time cannot have a beginning. The Universe, however, could have a beginning--even if it has lasted for an infinite time.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. William F. Vallicella (2000). Does the Cosmological Argument Depend on the Ontological? Faith and Philosophy 17 (4):441-458.
    Does the cosmological argument (CA) depend on the ontological (OA)? That depends. If the OA is an argument “from mere concepts,” then no; if the OA is an argument from possibility, then yes. That is my main thesis. Along the way, I explore a number of subsidiary themes, among them, the nature of proof in metaphysics, and what Kant calls the “mystery of absolute necessity.”.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
Cosmological Arguments from Contingency
  1. James Franklin (1980). More on Part IX of Hume's Dialogues. Philosophical Quarterly 30 (118):69-71.
    Defends the cosmological argument for the existence of God against Hume's criticisms. Hume objects that since a cause is before its effect, an eternal succession has no cause; but that would rule of by fiat the possibility of God's creating the world from eternity. Hume argues that once a cause is given for each of a collection of objects, there is not need to posit a cause of the whole collection; but that is to assume the universe to be a (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 397