David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Metaphysica 10 (1):97-108 (2009)
I argue that there are Leibnizian-style cosmological arguments for the existence of God which start from very mild premises which affirm the mere possibility of a principle of sufficient reason. The utilization of such premises gives a great deal of plausibility to such types of argumentation. I spend the majority of the paper defending three major objections to such mild premises viz., a reductio argument from Peter van Inwagen and William Rowe, which proffers and defends the idea that a necessary proposition cannot explain a contingent one. I, then, turn to an amelioration of the Rowe/van Inwagen argument which attempts to appeal to an entailment relation between explanans and explanandum that is fettered out in terms of relevance logic. Subsequent to dispelling with that worry, I tackle objections to the utilization of weak principles of sufficient reason that depend essentially upon agglomerative accounts of explanation.
|Keywords||Explanation Entailment Cosmological Arguments Principle of Sufficient Reason|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
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
Robert H. Kane (1996). The Significance of Free Will. Oxford University Press.
Hartry H. Field (2008). Saving Truth From Paradox. Oxford University Press.
Timothy O'Connor (2000). Persons and Causes: The Metaphysics of Free Will. Oxford University Press.
Ernest Nagel (1961). The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation. Harcourt, Brace & World.
Citations of this work BETA
Christopher Weaver (2012). What Could Be Caused Must Actually Be Caused. Synthese 184 (3):299-317.
Similar books and articles
Marcy P. Lascano (2011). Emilie du Châtelet on the Existence and Nature of God: An Examination of Her Arguments in Light of Their Sources. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 19 (4):741 - 758.
Richard M. Gale & Alexander R. Pruss (2002). A Response to Oppy, and to Davey and Clifton. Religious Studies 38 (1):89-99.
Alexander R. Pruss (2004). A Restricted Principle of Sufficient Reason and the Cosmological Argument. Religious Studies 40 (2):165-179.
Graham Oppy (2000). On ‘a New Cosmological Argument’. Religious Studies 36 (3):345-353.
Anthony Brueckner (2001). Van Inwagen on the Cosmological Argument. Philosophical Papers 30 (1):31-40.
Ghislain Guigon (2011). Merely Possible Explanation. Religious Studies 47 (3):359-370.
Elmar J. Kremer (1997). The Cosmological Argument Without the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Faith and Philosophy 14 (1):62-70.
Patrick Francken & Heimir Geirsson (1999). Regresses, Sufficient Reasons, and Cosmological Arguments. Journal of Philosophical Research 24:285-304.
Added to index2009-12-02
Total downloads231 ( #13,408 of 1,940,985 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #115,059 of 1,940,985 )
How can I increase my downloads?