New remarks on the cosmological argument

Abstract
We present a formal analysis of the Cosmological Argument in its two main forms: that due to Aquinas, and the revised version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument more recently advocated by William Lane Craig. We formulate these two arguments in such a way that each conclusion follows in first-order logic from the corresponding assumptions. Our analysis shows that the conclusion which follows for Aquinas is considerably weaker than what his aims demand. With formalizations that are logically valid in hand, we reinterpret the natural language versions of the premises and conclusions in terms of concepts of causality consistent with (and used in) recent work in cosmology done by physicists. In brief: the Kalam argument commits the fallacy of equivocation in a way that seems beyond repair; two of the premises adopted by Aquinas seem dubious when the terms ‘cause’ and ‘causality’ are interpreted in the context of contemporary empirical science. Thus, while there are no problems with whether the conclusions follow logically from their assumptions, the Kalam argument is not viable, and the Aquinas argument does not imply a caused origination of the universe. The assumptions of the latter are at best less than obvious relative to recent work in the sciences. We conclude with mention of a new argument that makes some positive modifications to an alternative variation on Aquinas by Le Poidevin, which nonetheless seems rather weak.
Keywords Causality  Cosmology  Theology  Semantics
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 11,365
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
A. Grunbaum (2000). A New Critique of Theological Interpretations of Physical Cosmology. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 51 (1):1-43.

View all 9 references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Similar books and articles
Michael J. Almeida & Neal D. Judisch (2002). A New Cosmological Argument Undone. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 51 (1):55-64.
William Lane Craig (2011). Graham Oppy on the Kalam Cosmological Argument. International Philosophical Quarterly 51 (3):303-330.
Evan Sandsmark & Jason L. Megill (2010). Cosmological Argument: A Pragmatic Defense. European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 2 (1):127 - 142.
Kevin Davey & Mark Lippelmann (2007). Closed Systems, Explanations, and the Cosmological Argument. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 62 (2):89 - 101.
Analytics

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2012-02-24

Total downloads

37 ( #47,356 of 1,102,775 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

6 ( #46,777 of 1,102,775 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Start a new thread
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.