Search results for 'cosmological argument' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Sort by:
  1. Robert C. Koons (1997). A New Look at the Cosmological Argument. American Philosophical Quarterly 34 (2):193 - 211.score: 240.0
    The cosmological argument for God’s existence has a long history, but perhaps the most influential version of it has been the argument from contingency. This is the version that Frederick Copleston pressed upon Bertrand Russell in their famous debate about God’s existence in 1948 (printed in Russell’s 1957 Why I am not a Christian). Russell’s lodges three objections to the Thomistic argument.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Mark T. Nelson (1998). Bertrand Russell's Defence of the Cosmological Argument. American Philosophical Quarterly 35 (1):87-100.score: 240.0
    According to the cosmological argument, there must be a self-existent being, because, if every being were a dependent being, we would lack an explanation of the fact that there are any dependent beings at all, rather than nothing. This argument faces an important, but little-noticed objection: If self-existent beings may exist, why may not also self-explanatory facts also exist? And if self-explanatory facts may exist, why may not the fact that there are any dependent beings be a (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Tyron Goldschmidt (2011). The New Cosmological Argument: O'Connor on Ultimate Explanation. Philosophia 39 (2):267-288.score: 240.0
    Timothy O’Connor presents a novel and powerful version of the cosmological argument from contingency. What distinguishes his argument is that it does not depend on the Principle of Sufficient Reason. This version thus avoids powerful objections facing the Principle. We present and develop the argument, strengthening it in various ways. We fill in big gaps in the argument and answer criticisms. These include the criticisms that O’Connor considers as well as new criticisms. We explain how (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Robert C. Koons (2001). Defeasible Reasoning, Special Pleading and the Cosmological Argument: A Reply to Oppy. Faith and Philosophy 18 (2):192-203.score: 240.0
    This is a reply to a paper by Graham Oppy in the July, 1999 issue of this journal, “Koons’ Cosmological Argument.” Recent work in defeasible or nonmonotonic logic means that the cosmological argument can be cast in such a way that it does not presuppose that every contingent situation, without exception, has a cause. Instead, the burden of proof is shifted to the skeptic, who must produce positive reasons for thinking that the cosmos is an exception (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Kevin Davey & Mark Lippelmann (2007). Closed Systems, Explanations, and the Cosmological Argument. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 62 (2):89 - 101.score: 240.0
    Examples involving infinite suspended chains or infinite trains are sometimes used to defend perceived weaknesses in traditional cosmological arguments. In this article, we distinguish two versions of the cosmological argument, suggest that such examples can only be relevant if it is one specific type of cosmological argument that is being considered, and then criticize the use of such examples in this particular type of cosmological argument. Our criticism revolves around a discussion of what (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. William Lane Craig (2006). J. Howard Sobel on the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 36 (4):565-84.score: 210.0
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Christopher Alan Bobier (2013). God, Time and the Kalām Cosmological Argument. Sophia 52 (4):593-600.score: 192.0
    The Kalām cosmological argument deploys the following causal principle: whatever begins to exist has a cause. Yet, under what conditions does something ‘begin to exist’? What does it mean to say that ‘X begins to exist at t’? William Lane Craig has offered and defended various accounts that seek to establish the necessary and sufficient conditions for when something ‘begins to exist.’ I argue that all of the accounts that William Lane Craig has offered fail on the following (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Ian Proops (2014). Kant on the Cosmological Argument. Philosophers' Imprint 14 (12):1-21.score: 192.0
    In the first Critique Kant levels two main charges against the cosmological argument. First, it commits the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi. Second, in two rather different ways, it presupposes the ontological argument. Commentators have struggled to find merit in either of these charges. The paper argues that they can nonetheless be shown to have some merit, so long as one takes care to correctly identify the version of the cosmological argument that Kant means to be (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Gustavo E. Romero & Daniela Pérez (2012). New Remarks on the Cosmological Argument. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 72 (2):103-113.score: 184.0
    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 (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. 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.score: 180.0
    The first premise of the Kalam cosmological argument has come under fire in the last few years. The premise states that the universe had a beginning, and one of two prominent arguments for it turns on the claim that an actual infinite collection of entities cannot exist. After stating the Kalam cosmological argument and the two approaches to defending its first premise, I respond to two objections against the notion that an actual infinite collection is impossible: (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Wes Morriston, A Critique of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.score: 180.0
    The kalam[1] cosmological argument has two parts. The first part attempts to show that there is a First Cause of the universe. It can be conveniently summarized as follows.
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. William Lane Craig (1999). A Swift and Simple Refutation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument? Religious Studies 35 (1):57-72.score: 180.0
    John Taylor complains that the "Kalam" cosmological argument gives the appearance of being a swift and simple demonstration of the existence of a Creator of the universe, whereas in fact a convincing argument involving the premiss that the universe began to exist is very difficult to achieve. But Taylor's proffered defeaters of the premisses of the philosophical arguments for the beginning of the universe are themselves typically undercut due to Taylor's inadvertence to alternatives open to the defender (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Richard M. Gale & Alexander R. Pruss (1999). A New Cosmological Argument. Religious Studies 35 (4):461-476.score: 180.0
    We will give a new cosmological argument for the existence of a being who, although not proved to be the absolutely perfect God of the great Medieval theists, also is capable of playing the role in the lives of working theists of a being that is a suitable object of worship, adoration, love, respect, and obedience. Unlike the absolutely perfect God, the God whose necessary existence is established by our argument will not be shown to essentially have (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Mogens Lærke (2011). Leibniz's Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 93 (1):58-84.score: 180.0
    In this article, I discuss Leibniz's interpretation of the cosmological argument for the existence of God. In particular, I consider whether Leibniz's position on this point was developed partly in reference to Spinoza's position. First, I analyze Leibniz's annotations from 1676 on Spinoza's Letter 12. The traditional cosmological argument, as found in Avicenna and Saint Thomas for example, relies on the Aristotelian assumption that an actual infinite is impossible and on the idea that there can be (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Michael J. Almeida & Neal D. Judisch (2002). A New Cosmological Argument Undone. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 51 (1):55-64.score: 180.0
    There is an intriguing recent effort to develop a valid cosmological argument on the basis of quite minimal assumptions.1 Indeed, the basis of the new cosmological argument is so slight that it is likely to make even a conscientious theist suspicious – to say nothing of our vigilant atheists. In Section 1 we present the background assumptions and central premises of the new cosmological argument. We are sympathetic to the conclusion that there necessarily exists (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Graham Oppy (2002). Arguing About The Kalam Cosmological Argument. Philo 5 (1):34-61.score: 180.0
    This paper begins with a fairly careful and detailed discussion of the conditions under which someone who presents an argument ought to be prepared to concede that the argument is unsuccessful. The conclusions reached in this discussion are then applied to William Lane Craig’s defense of what he calls “the kalam cosmological argument.” Perhaps unsurprisingly, the chief contention of the paper is that Craig ought to be prepared to concede that “the kalam cosmological argument (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. William Lane Craig (1997). In Defense of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Faith and Philosophy 14 (2):236-247.score: 180.0
    Graham Oppy’s attempt to show that the critiques of the kalam cosmological argument offered by Griinbaum, Davies, and Hawking are successful is predicated upon a misunderstanding of the nature of defeaters in rational belief. Neither Grunbaum nor Oppy succeed in showing an incoherence in the Christian doctrine of creation. Oppy’s attempts to rehabilitate Davies’s critique founders on spurious counter-examples and unsubstantiated claims. Oppy’s defense of Hawking’s critique fails to allay suspicions about the reality of imaginary time and finally (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. William F. Vallicella (2000). Does the Cosmological Argument Depend on the Ontological? Faith and Philosophy 17 (4):441-458.score: 180.0
    Does the cosmological argument (CA) depend on the ontological (OA)? That depends. If the OA is an argument “from mere concepts,” then no; if the OA is an argument from possibility, then yes. That is my main thesis. Along the way, I explore a number of subsidiary themes, among them, the nature of proof in metaphysics, and what Kant calls the “mystery of absolute necessity.”.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Eric Sotnak (1999). The Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Possibility of an Actually Infinite Future. Philo 2 (2):41-52.score: 180.0
    Part of the kalam cosmological argument draws upon the claim that an actual infinite cannot exist. Classical theists also maintain both that some individuals will earn eternal life and that God infallibly foreknows the future. The claim that these latter two theses do not require that an actual infinite exists because God possesses an intuitive, rather than propositional intellect, is examined and rejected. Although the future is potential, rather than actual, classical theism requires that the future be, in (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Jan Dejnozka (1989). Zeno's Paradoxes and the Cosmological Argument. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 25 (2):65 - 81.score: 180.0
    I SHOW THAT THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT OF AQUINAS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD COMMITS A RATHER TRIVIAL LINGUISTIC FALLACY, BY SHOWING THAT (1) SOME OF ZENO'S PARADOXES COMMIT A TRIVIAL LINGUISTIC FALLACY, AND THAT (2) THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT IS SUFFICIENTLY SIMILAR TO THESE PARADOXES THAT IT COMMITS THE SAME FALLACY. COPLESTON'S VIEW THAT "MENTION OF THE MATHEMATICAL INFINITE SERIES IS IRRELEVANT" TO "ANY" OF AQUINAS'S ARGUMENTS FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE IS THUS SHOWN FALSE.
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Alexander R. Pruss (2004). A Restricted Principle of Sufficient Reason and the Cosmological Argument. Religious Studies 40 (2):165-179.score: 180.0
    The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) says that, necessarily, every contingently true proposition has an explanation. The PSR is the most controversial premise in the cosmological argument for the existence of God. It is likely that one reason why a number of philosophers reject the PSR is that they think there are conceptual counter-examples to it. For instance, they may think, with Peter van Inwagen, that the conjunction of all contingent propositions cannot have an explanation, or they may (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Arnold T. Guminski (2002). The Kalam Cosmological Argument. Philo 5 (2):196-215.score: 180.0
    This paper examines the Kalam Cosmological Argument, as expounded by ,William Lane Craig, insofar as it pertains to the premise that it is metaphysically impossible for an infinite set of real entities to exist. Craig contends that this premise is justified because the application of the Cantorian theory to the real world generates counterintuitive absurdities. This paper shows that Craig’s contention fails because it is possible to apply Cantorian theory to the real world without thereby generating counterintuitive absurdities, (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Graham Oppy (2010). Epistemological Foundations for Koons' Cosmological Argument? European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 2 (1):107 - 125.score: 180.0
    Some people -- including the present author -- have proposed and defended alternative restricted causal principles that block Robert Koons’s ’new’ cosmological argument without undermining the intuition that causation is very close to ubiquitous. In "Epistemological Foundations for the Cosmological Argument", Koons argues that any restricted causal principles that are insufficient for the purposes of his cosmological argument cause epistemological collapse into general scepticism. In this paper I argue, against Koons, that there is no (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Joseph K. Campbell (1996). Hume's Refutation of the Cosmological Argument. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 40 (3):159 - 173.score: 180.0
    Let me summarize the results of this paper in a way that seems fitting to Hume's discussion of the cosmological argument. There are some philosophers who adopt the most stringent empiricist principles. Such men and women would reject any notion of necessity that is not analytic, and for this reason they would never admit a proof of the necessary existence of anything. Other philosophers, though empiricists, are not so dogmatic. They question the need for, not the coherence of, (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Graham Oppy (2000). On ‘a New Cosmological Argument’. Religious Studies 36 (3):345-353.score: 180.0
    Richard Gale and Alexander Pruss contend that their ‘new cosmological argument’ is an improvement over familiar cosmological arguments because it relies upon a weaker version of the Principle of Sufficient Reason than that used in those more familiar arguments. However, I note that their ‘weaker’ version of the Principle of Sufficient Reason entails the ‘stronger’ version of that principle which is used in more familiar arguments, so that the alleged advantage of their proof turns out to be (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. William Lane Craig (2011). Graham Oppy on the Kalam Cosmological Argument. International Philosophical Quarterly 51 (3):303-330.score: 180.0
    Graham Oppy has emerged as one of the kalam cosmological argument’s most formidable opponents. He rejects all four of the arguments drawn from metaphysics and physics for the second premiss that the universe began to exist. He also thinks that we have no good reason to accept the first premiss that everything that begins to exist has a cause. In this response, I hope to show that the kalam cosmological argument is, in fact, considerably stronger than (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Donald P. Smith (2003). Kant on the Dependency of the Cosmological Argument on the Ontological Argument. European Journal of Philosophy 11 (2):206–218.score: 180.0
    Immanuel Kant’s well known and thoroughly discussed criticism of the cosmological argument, hereafter ‘CA’, is that it presupposes or depends upon the cogency of the ontological argument, hereafter ‘OA’. Call this criticism ‘the Dependency Thesis’. It is fair to say that the received view on the matter is that Kant failed to establish the Dependency Thesis.1 In what follows, I argue that the received view is mistaken. I begin by rehearsing the standard objection to what is (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Anthony Brueckner (2001). Van Inwagen on the Cosmological Argument. Philosophical Papers 30 (1):31-40.score: 180.0
    Abstract In his book Metaphysics, Peter van Inwagen constructs a version of the Cosmological Argument which does not depend on the Principle of Sufficient Reason. He goes on to reject the argument. In this paper, I construct an alternative version of the Cosmological Argument that uses some of van Inwagen's insights and yet is immune to his criticisms. If we suppose that for each contingent truth, there is some at least partial explanation, then it follows (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. William L. Rowe (1983). Self-Existence and the Cosmological Argument. Analysis 43 (1):61 - 62.score: 180.0
    This paper concerns the question of whether the principle of sufficient reason (every positive fact has an explanation) entails a crucial premise in the cosmological argument. The premise is: not every being can be a dependent being. (a dependent being is a being whose existence is accounted for by the causal activity of other things). It has been objected that in addition to psr we need the claim that a self-Existent being is possible. I discuss this objection and (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Robert Delahunty (1980). Descartes' Cosmological Argument. Philosophical Quarterly 30 (118):34-46.score: 180.0
    A recent discussion of descartes' cosmological argument has misconstrued its nature. Since the argument is seldom discussed, Is not flawed in the particular ways suggested, But is flawed in other ways, An analysis seems justifiable. Descartes' argument is, I contend, That the content of the idea of God required God as its cause. Finite experience cannot produce it, And prior awareness of it is a condition for recognizing finiteness. The argument does not depend on platonism, (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Elmar J. Kremer (1997). The Cosmological Argument Without the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Faith and Philosophy 14 (1):62-70.score: 180.0
    We formulate a version of the Cosmological Argument that deploys an epistemic principle of explanation in place of the traditional Principle of Sufficient Reason. The epistemic principle asserts that if there is a possible explanation of a fact, and some proposition is entailed by that explanation and by every other possible explanation of that fact, it is reasonable to accept that proposition. We try to show that there is a possible explanation of the fact that there are contingent (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. William F. Vallicella (1997). The Hume-Edwards Objection to the Cosmological Argument. Journal of Philosophical Research 22:423-443.score: 180.0
    One sort of cosmological argument for the existence of God starts from the fact that the universe exists and argues to a transcendent cause of this fact. According to the Hume-Edwards objection to this sort of cosmological argument, if every member of the universe is caused by a preceding member, then the universe has an intemal causal explanation in such a way as to obviate the need for a transcendent cause. The Hume-Edwards objection has recently come (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Mogens Lærke (2013). Spinoza and the Cosmological Argument According to Letter 12. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 21 (1):57 - 77.score: 180.0
    (2013). Spinoza and the Cosmological Argument According to Letter 12. British Journal for the History of Philosophy: Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 57-77. doi: 10.1080/09608788.2012.696052.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Robert C. Koons (2001). Defeasible Reasoning, Special Pleading and the Cosmological Argument. Faith and Philosophy 18 (2):192-203.score: 180.0
    This is a reply to a paper by Graham Oppy in the July, 1999 issue of this journal, “Koons’ Cosmological Argument.” Recent work in defeasible or nonmonotonic logic means that the cosmological argument can be cast in such a way that it does not presuppose that every contingent situation, without exception, has a cause. Instead, the burden of proof is shifted to the skeptic, who must produce positive reasons for thinking that the cosmos is an exception (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Peter Remnant (1959). Kant and the Cosmological Argument. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 37 (2):152 – 155.score: 180.0
    The author states kant's cosmological argument and its connection to the ontological argument. He discusses different criticisms of kant's argument, None of which he finds convincing. (staff).
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Johan De Smedt & Helen De Cruz, The Cognitive Appeal of the Cosmological Argument.score: 180.0
    The cosmological argument has enjoyed and still enjoys substantial popularity in various traditions of natural theology. We propose that its enduring appeal is due at least in part to its concurrence with human cognitive predispositions, in particular intuitions about causality and agency. These intuitions seem to be a stable part of human cognition. We will consider implications for the justification of the cosmological argument from externalist and internalist perspectives.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Mogens Laerke (2011). Leibniz's Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God. Archiv Fuer Geschichte der Philosophie 93 (1):58 - 84.score: 180.0
    In this article, I discuss Leibniz’s interpretation of the cosmological argument for the existence of God. In particular, I consider whether Leibniz’s position on this point was developed partly in reference to Spinoza’s position. First, I analyze Leibniz’s annotations from 1676 on Spinoza’s letter 12. The traditional cosmological argument, as found in Avicenna and Saint Thomas for example, relies on the Aristotelian assumption that an actual infinite is impossible and on the idea that there can be (...)
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Mogens Laerke (2011). Spinoza's Cosmological Argument in the 'Ethics'. Journal of the History of Philosophy 49 (4):439 - 462.score: 180.0
    This paper discusses Baruch de Spinoza’s cosmological argument for the existence of God (CA) as it can be found in ’Ethics’, I, proposition 11, demonstration 3. The aim of the article is to provide a reconstruction of the argument by developing the underlying metaphysical framework governing it. It is partly motivated by Michael Della Rocca’s attempt to account of fundamental principles of Spinoza’s philosophy. According to him, all dependence relations in Spinoza can be reduced to conceptual ones. (...)
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Evan Sandsmark & Jason L. Megill (2010). Cosmological Argument: A Pragmatic Defense. European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 2 (1):127 - 142.score: 180.0
    We formulate a sort of "generic" cosmological argument, i.e., a cosmological argument that shares premises (e.g., "contingent, concretely existing entities have a cause") with numerous versions of the argument. We then defend each of the premises by offering pragmatic arguments for them. We show that an endorsement of each premise will lead to an increase in expected utility; so in the absence of strong evidence that the premises are false, it is rational to endorse them. (...)
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Alexander R. Pruss, Some Recent Progress on the Cosmological Argument.score: 176.0
    In the first chapter of Romans, Paul tells us that the power and deity of God are evident from what he has created. One reading of this is that there is an argument from the content of what has been created. Thus, the Book of Wisdom, which may well have been the source of Paul’s ideas here, says that “from the greatness and beauty of created things their original author, by analogy, is seen” (13:5, NAB). This is a kind (...)
    No categories
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Quentin Smith (1992). A Big Bang Cosmological Argument for God's Nonexistence. Faith and Philosophy 9 (2):217-237.score: 174.0
    The big bang cosmological theory is relevant to Christian theism and other theist perspectives since it represents the universe as beginning to exist ex nihilo about 15 billion years ago. This paper addresses the question of whether it is reasonable to believe that God created the big bang. Some theists answer in the affirmative, but it is argued in this paper that this belief is not reasonable. In the course of this argument, there is a discussion of the (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. William L. Rowe (1971/1998). The Cosmological Argument. Noûs 5 (1):49-61.score: 162.0
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Mark R. Nowacki (2007). The Kalam Cosmological Argument for God. Prometheus Books.score: 162.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Hugo Anthony Meynell (1982). The Intelligible Universe: A Cosmological Argument. Barnes & Noble.score: 162.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Mark R. Nowacki (2006). Kalam Cosmological Argument for God. Prometheus Books.score: 162.0
  46. Quentin Smith, A Cosmological Argument for a Self Caused Universe (2008).score: 156.0
    I intend to argue for the conclusion that the universe, be it infinitely old or finitely old, causes itself. One might object that no such argument could possibly succeed, because the claim that "the universe causes itself" is incoherent. I agree that this claim is incoherent if it is understood to mean that one individual, the universe, causes that same individual to come into existence. No individual can bring about its own existence, because no individual can bring about anything (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Robin Collins, Objections to Smith's Cosmological Argument (2008).score: 156.0
    In his opening case , Quentin Smith has presented an ingenious argument for the claim that the universe is self caused, and hence its existence is self explanatory. He then goes on to claim that the fact that the universe is self caused, and hence self explanatory, is inconsistent with theism. His main argument is based on the assumption that each temporal part of the universe has an explanation in terms of the temporal parts existing prior to it. (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Brian Leftow (1989). A Leibnizian Cosmological Argument. Philosophical Studies 57 (2):135 - 155.score: 156.0
    I explicate and defend leibniz's argument from "eternal truths" to the existence of god. I argue that necessary beings can be caused to exist, Showing how one can apply a counterfactual analysis to such causation, Then argue that if such beings can be caused to exist, They are.
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Kevin Davey & Rob Clifton (2001). Insufficient Reason in the ‘New Cosmological Argument’. Religious Studies 37 (4):485-490.score: 156.0
    In a recent article in this journal, Richard Gale and Alexander Pruss offer a new cosmological proof for the existence of God relying only on the Weak Principle of Sufficient Reason, W-PSR. We argue that their proof relies on applications of W-PSR that cannot be justified, and that our modal intuitions simply do not support W-PSR in the way Gale and Pruss take them to.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Graham Oppy (1999). Koons' Cosmological Argument. Faith and Philosophy 16 (3):378-389.score: 156.0
    Robert Koons has recently defended what he claims is a successful argument for the existence of a necessary first cause, and which he develops by taking “a new look” at traditional arguments from contingency. I argue that Koons’ argument is less than successful; in particular, I claim that his attempt to “shift the burden of proof” to non-theists amounts to nothing more than an ill-disguised begging of one of the central questions upon which theists and non-theists disagree. I (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 1000