Graduate studies at Western
Religious Studies 33 (2):167-179 (1997)
|Abstract||This paper contains a critique of the 'Kalam' Cosmological Argument for a first cause of the universe as a whole. I argue that one of its major premises (that the universe began to exist) cannot be justified a priori from the paradoxes of the actual infinite, nor by appeal to current cosmological theories. But those who wish to infer from cosmology to the non-existence of a first cause also fail to make their case. I conclude with some morals for the project of natural theology|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Gustavo E. Romero & Daniela Pérez (2012). New Remarks on the Cosmological Argument. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 72 (2):103-113.
Wes Morriston (2000). Must the Beginning of the Universe Have a Personal Cause? Faith and Philosophy 17 (2):149-169.
William Lane Craig (2006). J. Howard Sobel on the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 36 (4):565-84.
Graham Oppy (2002). Arguing About The Kalam Cosmological Argument. Philo 5 (1):34-61.
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.
David S. Oderberg (2003). The Beginning of Existence. International Philosophical Quarterly 43 (2):145-157.
William Lane Craig (1999). A Swift and Simple Refutation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument? Religious Studies 35 (1):57-72.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads24 ( #58,054 of 753,454 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,000 of 753,454 )
How can I increase my downloads?