Graduate studies at Western
Philosophia 39 (2):267-288 (2011)
|Abstract||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 criticism and to the demand for contrastive explanation fail, and properly answer the criticism and the demand. We develop two new criticisms, the objection from opaqueness and the objection from constitution, and explain how these objections can be answered|
|Keywords||Cosmological Argument Contingency Necessary Being Metaphysics Philosophy of Religion Natural Theology|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Alexander Pruss (1999). A New Cosmological Argument. Religious Studies 35 (4):461 - 476.
Anthony Brueckner (2001). Van Inwagen on the Cosmological Argument. Philosophical Papers 30 (1):31-40.
Michael J. Almeida & Neal D. Judisch (2002). A New Cosmological Argument Undone. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 51 (1):55-64.
Robert C. Koons (1997). A New Look at the Cosmological Argument. American Philosophical Quarterly 34 (2):193 - 211.
Graham Oppy (2002). Arguing About The Kalam Cosmological Argument. Philo 5 (1):34-61.
Kevin Davey & Mark Lippelmann (2007). Closed Systems, Explanations, and the Cosmological Argument. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 62 (2):89 - 101.
Patrick Francken & Heimir Geirsson (1999). Regresses, Sufficient Reasons, and Cosmological Arguments. Journal of Philosophical Research 24:285-304.
Timothy Joe McKenzie, The God of the Cosmological Argument and the God of Religion: Can the Two Be Reconciled?
Ghislain Guigon (2011). Merely Possible Explanation. Religious Studies 47 (3):359-370.
Stanley Tweyman (2008). A Humean Criticism of the Cosmological-Ontological Proof. Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 45:357-364.
Alexander R. Pruss (2004). A Restricted Principle of Sufficient Reason and the Cosmological Argument. Religious Studies 40 (2):165-179.
Elmar J. Kremer (1997). The Cosmological Argument Without the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Faith and Philosophy 14 (1):62-70.
Tyron Goldschmidt (2012). Metaphysical Nihilism and Necessary Being. Philosophia 40 (4):799-820.
Evan Sandsmark & Jason L. Megill (2010). Cosmological Argument: A Pragmatic Defense. European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 2 (1):127 - 142.
Added to index2010-11-18
Total downloads83 ( #11,267 of 739,165 )
Recent downloads (6 months)46 ( #1,455 of 739,165 )
How can I increase my downloads?