David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 72 (2):103-113 (2012)
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)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Graham Oppy (2002). Arguing About The Kalam Cosmological Argument. Philo 5 (1):34-61.
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 (2006). J. Howard Sobel on the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 36 (4):565-84.
William Lane Craig (2011). Graham Oppy on the Kalam Cosmological Argument. International Philosophical Quarterly 51 (3):303-330.
William Lane Craig (1999). A Swift and Simple Refutation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument? Religious Studies 35 (1):57-72.
John Taylor (1997). Kalam: A Swift Argument From Origins to First Cause? Religious Studies 33 (2):167-179.
Evan Sandsmark & Jason L. Megill (2010). Cosmological Argument: A Pragmatic Defense. European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 2 (1):127 - 142.
Alexander Pruss (1999). A New Cosmological Argument. Religious Studies 35 (4):461 - 476.
Ismail Latif Hacinebioglu (2008). Does God Exist? Logical Foundations of the Cosmological Argument. Insan Publ.
Elliott Sober (2004). The Design Argument. In William Mann (ed.), The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Religion. Blackwell Pub..
J. P. Moreland (2003). A Response to a Platonistic and to a Set-Theoretic Objection to the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Religious Studies 39 (4):373-390.
Kevin Davey & Mark Lippelmann (2007). Closed Systems, Explanations, and the Cosmological Argument. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 62 (2):89 - 101.
Added to index2012-02-24
Total downloads30 ( #48,067 of 1,010,603 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #39,218 of 1,010,603 )
How can I increase my downloads?