Kalam: A swift argument from origins to first cause?
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 | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,711 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesGustavo 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.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads23 ( #53,940 of 551,007 )Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #19,337 of 551,007 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
