|Abstract||l. ln `“Time, Successive Addition. and Kn/uni Cosmological Arguments," Graham Oppy accuses supporters ofthe KCA of being committed to a strict Hnitist metaphysics. lfthis is supposed to mean that we deny continua in nature, that is quite wrong. All it means is that we deny the existence of actual intinities. ln fact, Oppy protesses not to be tackling that question but throughout his paper he suggests or implies that the KCA falls down on this score.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Daniel A. Dombrowski (2007). Oppy, Infinity, and the Neoclassical Concept of God. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 61 (1):25 - 37.
Robert C. Koons (2001). Defeasible Reasoning, Special Pleading and the Cosmological Argument: A Reply to Oppy. Faith and Philosophy 18 (2):192-203.
Graham Oppy (2009). Cosmological Arguments. Noûs 43 (1):31-48.
Bruce Langtry (2011). Reply to Oppy on God, the Best and Evil. Sophia 50 (1):211-219.
Graham Oppy (2000). Response to Gettings. Analysis 60 (4):363–367.
Ghislain Guigon (2011). Merely Possible Explanation. Religious Studies 47 (3):359-370.
William Lane Craig (1997). In Defense of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Faith and Philosophy 14 (2):236-247.
Graham Robert Oppy (2006). Arguing About Gods. Cambridge University Press.
Added to index2009-05-13
Total downloads18 ( #74,462 of 722,765 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,247 of 722,765 )
How can I increase my downloads?