This category needs an editor. We encourage you to help if you are qualified.
Volunteer, or read more about what this involves.
Related categories
Siblings:
39 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Order:
  1. Oleg Bazaluk (ed.) (2011). Philosophy and Cosmology 2011 (The Journal of International Society of Philosophy and Cosmology (ISPC) ). ISPC.
    Philosophy and Cosmology is an open access, peer-reviewed and refereed journal that focuses on theoretical and conceptual problems and issues in philosophical and cosmological research. Philosophy and Cosmology is published by International Society of Philosophy and Cosmology. The objective of Philosophy and Cosmology is to promote exchange and collaboration among philosophers, social, technical and natural science researchers throughout the world. In pursuit of this objective the journal not only publishes high quality research papers but also ensures that the published papers (...)
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2. Oleg Bazaluk (ed.) (2008). Philosophy and Cosmology 2008 (The Journal of International Society of Philosophy and Cosmology (ISPC) ). ISPC.
    Philosophy and Cosmology is an open access, peer-reviewed and refereed journal that focuses on theoretical and conceptual problems and issues in philosophical and cosmological research. Philosophy and Cosmology is published by International Society of Philosophy and Cosmology. The objective of Philosophy and Cosmology is to promote exchange and collaboration among philosophers, social, technical and natural science researchers throughout the world. In pursuit of this objective the journal not only publishes high quality research papers but also ensures that the published papers (...)
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3. Caleb Cohoe (2015). Review of "Aquinas’s Way to God: The Proof in De Ente Et Essentia," Gaven Kerr. [REVIEW] Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2015.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4. Martin J. de Nys (2002). If Everything Can Not-Be There Would Be Nothing. Review of Metaphysics 56 (1):99-122.
  5. Steven M. Duncan, A Defense of the Crucial Premise of the Third Way.
    Aquinas' Third Way is often dismissed as a howler, because he infers from the fact that, since the universe is metaphysically contingent that there was some time in the past when it didn't exist. I offer an argument to justify this inference.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6. Patrick Francken & Heimir Geirsson (1999). Regresses, Sufficient Reasons, and Cosmological Arguments. Journal of Philosophical Research 24:285-304.
    Most of the historically salient versions of the Cosmological Argument rest on two assumptions. The first assumption is that some contingeney (i.e., contingent fact) is such that a necessity is required to explain it. Against that assumption we will argue that necessities alone cannot explain any contingency and, furthermore, that it is impossible to explain the totality of contingencies at all.The second assumption is the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Against the Principle of Sufficient Reason we will argue that it is (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  7. 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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8. Ludger Honnefelder, Rega Wood & Mechthild Dreyer (eds.) (1996). John Duns Scotus: Metaphysics and Ethics. E.J. Brill.
  9. Gaetano Iaia (2009). Scienza e fede dinanzi al mistero della creazione: alcune premesse a una teologia dell’esistenza creaturale. Asprenas 56 (3):69-82.
  10. Peter Van Inwagen & E. J. Lowe (1996). Why Is There Anything at All? Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 70:95 - 120.
  11. Robert Koons (2010). Epistemological Foundations of the Cosmological Argument. Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion 1:105.
  12. Robert C. Koons (2001). Defeasible Reasoning, Special Pleading and the Cosmological Argument: A Reply to Oppy. Faith and Philosophy 18 (2):192-203.
    This is a reply to a paper by Graham Oppy in the July, 1999 issue of this journal, “Koons’ Cosmological Argument.” Recent work in defeasible or nonmonotonic logic means that the cosmological argument can be cast in such a way that it does not presuppose that every contingent situation, without exception, has a cause. Instead, the burden of proof is shifted to the skeptic, who must produce positive reasons for thinking that the cosmos is an exception to the defeasible law (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  13. Ken Levy (2005). Is Descartes a Temporal Atomist? British Journal for the History of Philosophy 13 (4):627 – 674.
    I argue that Descartes' Second Causal Proof of God in the Third Meditation evidences, and commits him to, the belief that time is "strongly discontinuous" -- that is, that there is actually a gap between each consecutive moment of time. Much of my article attempts to reconcile this interpretation, the "received view," with Descartes' statements about time, space, and matter in his other writings, including his correspondence with various philosophers.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  14. Martin Lin (2007). Spinoza's Arguments for the Existence of God. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 75 (2):269-297.
    It is often thought that, although Spinoza develops a bold and distinctive conception of God, the arguments that he offers which purport to prove God’s existence contribute nothing new to natural theology. Rather, he is seen as just another participant in the seventeenthcentury revival of the ontological argument initiated by Descartes and taken up by Malebranche and Leibniz among others. That this is the case is both puzzling and unfortunate. It is puzzling because although Spinoza does offer an ontological proof (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  15. Mark T. Nelson (1998). Bertrand Russell's Defence of the Cosmological Argument. American Philosophical Quarterly 35 (1):87-100.
    According to the cosmological argument, there must be a self-existent being, because, if every being were a dependent being, we would lack an explanation of the fact that there are any dependent beings at all, rather than nothing. This argument faces an important, but little-noticed objection: If self-existent beings may exist, why may not also self-explanatory facts also exist? And if self-explanatory facts may exist, why may not the fact that there are any dependent beings be a self-explanatory fact? And (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  16. Mark T. Nelson (1996). The Principle of Sufficient Reason: A Moral Argument. Religious Studies 32 (1):15-26.
    The Clarke/Rowe version of the Cosmological Argument is sound only if the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) is true, but many philosophers, including Rowe, think that there is not adequate evidence for the principle of sufficient reason. I argue that there may be indirect evidence for PSR on the grounds that if we do not accept it, we lose our best justification for an important principle of metaethics, namely, the Principle of Universalizability. To show this, I argue that all the (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  17. Timothy O'Connor (2008). Theism and Ultimate Explanation: The Necessary Shape of Contingency. Blackwell Pub..
    An expansive, yet succinct, analysis of the Philosophy of Religion --from metaphysics through theology. Organized into two sections, the text first examines truths concerning what is possible and what is necessary. These chapters lay the foundation for the book’s second part -- the search for a metaphysical framework that permits the possibility of an ultimate explanation that is correct and complete.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   14 citations  
  18. Timothy O'Connor (2004). And This All Men Call God. Faith and Philosophy 21 (4):417-435.
    Philosophical discussion of theistic arguments mainly focus on their first (existence) stage, which argues for the existence of something having some very general, if suggestive, feature. I shall instead consider only the second (identification) stage of one such argument, the cosmologic al argument from contingency. Taking for granted the existence of an absolutely necessary being, I develop an extended line of argument that supports the..
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  19. Timothy O'Connor (1995). From First Efficient Cause to God: Scotus on the Identification Stage of the Cosmological Argument. In L. Honnefelder, R. Wood & M. Dreyer (eds.), John Duns Scotus: Metaphysics and Ethics. E.J.Brill
  20. Graham Oppy (2014). Analysis of Existing: Barry Miller's Approach to God, by Elmar J. Kremer. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 93 (2):409-410.
    Review of Kremer's book on Barry Miller's approach to God. (I have discussed Miller's argument from contingency in other publications.).
    Remove from this list   Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  21. Graham Oppy (2011). O'Connor's Cosmological Argument. Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion: Vol. 3 3:166.
    This chapter is a critical discussion of the third chapter of Tim O ' Connor ' s * Theism and Ultimate Explanation *. In this chapter, O ' Connor advances the & quot ; existence stage & quot ; of his cosmological argument from contingency. I argue that naturalists have good reason to think that on each of the live hypotheses -- infinite regress, brute contingency, brute necessity -- naturalism is preferable to theism.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  22. Graham Oppy (2010). The Shape of Causal Reality: A Naturalistic Adaptation of O’Connor’s Cosmological Argument. Philosophia Christi 12 (2):281-288.
    This paper is a companion to an article that I published in *Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion*. The OSPR discusses the third chapter of Tim O'Connor's *Theism and Ultimate Explanation. This paper discusses a range of other issues that are not picked up in the OSPR discussion.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  23. Graham Oppy (2008). Review of Timothy O'Connor, Theism and Ultimate Explanation: The Necessary Shape of Contingency. [REVIEW] Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2008 (6).
    This paper is a review of the cosmological argument that Tim O'Connor defends in "Theism and Ultimate Explanation".
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  24. Graham Oppy (2004). Faulty Reasoning About Default Principles in Cosmological Arguments. Faith and Philosophy 21 (2):242-249.
    Robert Koons claims that my previous critique of his “new” cosmological argument is vitiated by confusion about the nature of defeasible argumentation.In response, I claim that Koons misrepresents—and perhaps misunderstands—the nature of my objections to his “new” cosmological argument. The main claims which I defend are: (1) that the move from a non-defeasible to a defeasible causal principle makes absolutely no difference to the success of the cosmological argument in which it is contained; and (2) that, since it is perfectly (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  25. Graham Oppy (2000). On ‘a New Cosmological Argument’. Religious Studies 36 (3):345-353.
    Richard Gale and Alexander Pruss contend that their ‘new cosmological argument’ is an improvement over familiar cosmological arguments because it relies upon a weaker version of the Principle of Sufficient Reason than that used in those more familiar arguments. However, I note that their ‘weaker’ version of the Principle of Sufficient Reason entails the ‘stronger’ version of that principle which is used in more familiar arguments, so that the alleged advantage of their proof turns out to be illusory. Moreover, I (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  26. Stephen E. Parrish (1997). God and Necessity: A Defense of Classical Theism. UPA.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  27. Kenneth L. Pearce, Foundational Grounding and the Argument From Contingency.
    The argument from contingency for the existence of God is best understood as a request for an explanation of the total sequence of causes and effects in the universe. Many puzzles about how there could be such an explanation arise from the assumption that God is being introduced as one more cause prepended to the sequence of causes that (allegedly) needed explaining. In response to this difficulty, I defend three theses. First, I argue that, if the argument from contingency is (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  28. Kenneth L. Pearce (2014). The Puzzle of Existence: Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing? [REVIEW] Faith and Philosophy 31 (3):341-344.
  29. Alejandro Pérez (2015). Frédéric Guillaud, Dieu existe. Arguments philosophiques, Éditions du Cerf, Paris 2013 (« La nuit surveillée »), pp. 416. [REVIEW] Acta Philosophica 24 (2):424-425.
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  30. Ian Proops (2014). Kant on the Cosmological Argument. Philosophers' Imprint 14 (12):1-21.
    In the first Critique Kant levels two main charges against the cosmological argument. First, it commits the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi. Second, in two rather different ways, it presupposes the ontological argument. Commentators have struggled to find merit in either of these charges. The paper argues that they can nonetheless be shown to have some merit, so long as one takes care to correctly identify the version of the cosmological argument that Kant means to be attacking. That turns out to (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  31. Lorenz B. Puntel (2004). How Can the Grand Metaphysical Questions of the (Christian-)Metaphysical Tradition Be Re-Thought Today? Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 78:83-91.
    The necessary task for philosophy is the development of a metaphysical ontology, i.e., a philosophical theory of everything. The urgency of this task is apparentin, for example, the weakness of proofs for the existence of God. When such “proofs” are not rooted in a comprehensive metaphysical ontology, the principlesapplied, as well as the “God” whose existence has supposedly been proven, are unintelligible. Thus, the explication of Being, from within an adequately articulated framework, should be the central focus of philosophy. The (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  32. Joel Pust (2007). Cartesian Knowledge and Confirmation. Journal of Philosophy 104 (6):269-289.
    Bayesian conceptions of evidence have been invoked in recent arguments regarding the existence of God, the hypothesis of multiple physical universes, and the Doomsday Argument. Philosophers writing on these topics often claim that, given a Bayesian account of evidence, our existence or something entailed by our existence (perhaps in conjunction with some background knowledge or assumption) may serve as evidence for each of us. In this paper, I argue that this widespread view is mistaken. The mere fact of one's existence (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  33. Joshua Rasmussen & Christopher Gregory Weaver (forthcoming). Why is There Anything? In Jerry L. Walls Trent Dougherty (ed.), Two Dozen (or so) Arguments for God: The Plantinga Project. Oxford University Press
    We argue that there exists a necessary causally potent being. We then argue that that being is God.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  34. Bruce Reichenbach (2004). Explanation and the Cosmological Argument. In Michael Peterson & Raymond vanArragon (eds.), Contemporary Debates in the Philosophy of Religion. 97-114.
    After writing about the need for explanation and types of explanations, I present three cosmological arguments: the argument from contingency, the kalam cosmological argument, and the inductive argument from the inference to the best explanation. I respond to major objections to each of them.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  35. Bruce R. Reichenbach (1976). John J. Shepherd, "Experience, Inference, and God". [REVIEW] The Thomist 40 (3):488.
    I review John Shepherd's "Experience, Inference and God," in which he contends that we can argue to God's existence abductively from religious experience. He goes on to flesh out the nature of this Cosmos-Explaining Being, describing the properties of the deity that emerge from the argument from contingency.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  36. Bruce R. Reichenbach (1975). The Cosmological Argument and the Causal Principle. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 6 (3):185 - 190.
    I reply to Houston Craighead, who presents two arguments against my version of the cosmological argument. First, he argues that my arguments in defense of the causal principle in terms of the existence being accidental to an essence is fallacious because it begs the question. I respond that the objection itself is circular, and that it invokes the questionable contention that what is conceivable is possible. Against my contention that the causal principle might be intuitively known, I reply to his (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  37. Evan Sandsmark & Jason L. Megill (2010). Cosmological Argument: A Pragmatic Defense. European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 2 (1):127 - 142.
    We formulate a sort of "generic" cosmological argument, i.e., a cosmological argument that shares premises (e.g., "contingent, concretely existing entities have a cause") with numerous versions of the argument. We then defend each of the premises by offering pragmatic arguments for them. We show that an endorsement of each premise will lead to an increase in expected utility; so in the absence of strong evidence that the premises are false, it is rational to endorse them. Therefore, it is rational to (...)
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  38. D. C. Stove (1978). Part IX of Hume's Dialogues. Philosophical Quarterly 28 (113):300-309.
    In part ix of "dialogues concerning natural religion", Demea advances an "a priori" argument for the existence of god: an argument of which cleanthes and philo then make a number of trenchant criticisms. These criticisms are acknowledged by all commentators to be hume's own, And they are regarded by almost all commentators as being fatal to demea's argument. I show that, On the contrary, Hume's main criticisms are all worthless, And that they even include an inconsistency of the most glaring (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  39. Christopher Gregory Weaver (2016). Yet Another New Cosmological Argument. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 80 (1):11-31.
    I argue that the existence of a necessary concrete being can be derived from an exceedingly weak causal principle coupled with two contingent truths one of which falls out of very popular positions in contemporary analytic metaphysics. I then show that the argument resists a great many objections commonly lodged against natural theological arguments of the cosmological variety.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography