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

1000+ found
Order:
  1.  84
    Christopher Gregory Weaver (forthcoming). Yet Another New Cosmological Argument. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion:1-21.
    I argue that the existence of a necessary concrete being can be derived from an exceedingly weak causal principle coupled with two contingent truths one of which falls out of very popular positions in contemporary analytic metaphysics. I then show that the argument resists a great many objections commonly lodged against natural theological arguments of the cosmological variety.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2. Robert C. Koons (1997). A New Look at the Cosmological Argument. American Philosophical Quarterly 34 (2):193 - 211.
    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 (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   13 citations  
  3.  42
    Jacobus Erasmus & Anné Hendrik Verhoef (2015). The Kalām Cosmological Argument and the Infinite God Objection. Sophia 54 (4):411-427.
    In this article, we evaluate various responses to a noteworthy objection, namely, the infinite God objection to the kalām cosmological argument. As regards this objection, the proponents of the kalām argument face a dilemma—either an actual infinite cannot exist or God cannot be infinite. More precisely, this objection claims that God’s omniscience entails the existence of an actual infinite with God knowing an actually infinite number of future events or abstract objects, such (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4. Tyron Goldschmidt (2011). The New Cosmological Argument: O'Connor on Ultimate Explanation. Philosophia 39 (2):267-288.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  5. Mark T. Nelson (1998). Bertrand Russell's Defence of the Cosmological Argument. American Philosophical Quarterly 35 (1):87-100.
    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 (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6. Robert C. Koons (2001). Defeasible Reasoning, Special Pleading and the Cosmological Argument: A Reply to Oppy. Faith and Philosophy 18 (2):192-203.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  7.  69
    Graham Oppy (2000). On ‘a New Cosmological Argument’. Religious Studies 36 (3):345-353.
    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 (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  8.  48
    Graham Oppy (2011). O'Connor's Cosmological Argument. Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion: Vol. 3 3:166.
    This chapter is a critical discussion of the third chapter of Tim O'Connor's *Theism and Ultimate Explanation*. In this chapter, O'Connor advances the "existence stage" of his cosmological argument from contingency. I argue that naturalists have good reason to think that on each of the live hypotheses--infinite regress, brute contingency, brute necessity--naturalism is preferable to theism.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9. Bruce Reichenbach (2004). Explanation and the Cosmological Argument. In Michael Peterson & Raymond vanArragon (eds.), Contemporary Debates in the Philosophy of Religion. 97-114.
    After writing about the need for explanation and types of explanations, I present three cosmological arguments: the argument from contingency, the kalam cosmological argument, and the inductive argument from the inference to the best explanation. I respond to major objections to each of them.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10.  66
    Kevin Davey & Mark Lippelmann (2007). Closed Systems, Explanations, and the Cosmological Argument. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 62 (2):89 - 101.
    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 (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  11.  18
    Bruce R. Reichenbach (1970). Divine Necessity and the Cosmological Argument. The Monist 54 (3):401-415.
    An analysis of the use of "necessary" in the cosmological argument reveals that the criticism of it, i.e., that its conclusion is self-contradictory because no existential proposition can be logically necessary, is due to the mistaken contention that the necessity involved is logical rather than conditional necessity.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  12. Bruce Reichenbach (1981). William Lane Craig: "The Kalam Cosmological Argument". [REVIEW] The Thomist 45 (2):338.
    Reviews William Craig's book, "The Kalam Cosmological Argument," which first gives the Islamic background to the kalam argument and then develops Craig's own modernization of the argument, using both philosophical and scientific sources.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  13.  26
    Bruce R. Reichenbach (1975). The Cosmological Argument and the Causal Principle. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 6 (3):185 - 190.
    I reply to Houston Craighead, who presents two arguments against my version of the cosmological argument. First, he argues that my arguments in defense of the causal principle in terms of the existence being accidental to an essence is fallacious because it begs the question. I respond that the objection itself is circular, and that it invokes the questionable contention that what is conceivable is possible. Against my contention that the causal principle might be intuitively known, I reply (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  14. Bruce R. Reichenbach (1972). The Cosmological Argument: A Reassessment. Springfield, Ill.,Thomas.
    The book adapts St. Thomas's Third Way of demonstrating the existence of God in light of contemporary issues in philosophy. Major topics in this study are causation, the principles of causation and sufficient reason, logical and real necessity, causation of the cosmos, and non-dependency of the cosmological on the ontological argument.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  15. Graham Oppy (1995). Inverse Operations with Transfinite Numbers and the Kalam Cosmological Argument. International Philosophical Quarterly 35 (2):219-221.
    William Lane Craig has argued that there cannot be actual infinities because inverse operations are not well-defined for infinities. I point out that, in fact, there are mathematical systems in which inverse operations for infinities are well-defined. In particular, the theory introduced in John Conway's *On Numbers and Games* yields a well-defined field that includes all of Cantor's transfinite numbers.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  16. William Lane Craig (2006). J. Howard Sobel on the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 36 (4):565-84.
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  17.  58
    Graham Oppy (2010). The Shape of Causal Reality: A Naturalistic Adaptation of O’Connor’s Cosmological Argument. Philosophia Christi 12 (2):281-288.
    This paper is a companion to an article that I published in *Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion*. The OSPR discusses the third chapter of Tim O'Connor's *Theism and Ultimate Explanation. This paper discusses a range of other issues that are not picked up in the OSPR discussion.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  18. Robert Koons (2010). Epistemological Foundations of the Cosmological Argument. Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion 1:105.
  19.  90
    Ian Proops (2014). Kant on the Cosmological Argument. Philosophers' Imprint 14 (12):1-21.
    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  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20.  97
    Christopher Alan Bobier (2013). God, Time and the Kalām Cosmological Argument. Sophia 52 (4):593-600.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  21. Rem B. Edwards (1968). Composition and the Cosmological Argument. Mind 77 (305):115-117.
    This article argues that not all arguments from parts to wholes commit the informal logical fallacy of composition,and especially not the cosmological argument for God which moves from the contingent existence of all the parts of the cosmos to the contingent existence of the whole.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  22. Donald P. Smith (2003). Kant on the Dependency of the Cosmological Argument on the Ontological Argument. European Journal of Philosophy 11 (2):206–218.
    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 typically (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  23. Richard M. Gale & Alexander R. Pruss (1999). A New Cosmological Argument. Religious Studies 35 (4):461-476.
    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 (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   12 citations  
  24.  83
    Evan Sandsmark & Jason L. Megill (2010). Cosmological Argument: A Pragmatic Defense. European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 2 (1):127 - 142.
    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
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  25. Graham Oppy (2010). Epistemological Foundations for Koons' Cosmological Argument? European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 2 (1):107 - 125.
    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 (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  26. Graham Oppy (2002). Arguing About The Kalam Cosmological Argument. Philo 5 (1):34-61.
    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 (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  27. 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.
    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 (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  28. William Lane Craig (1997). In Defense of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Faith and Philosophy 14 (2):236-247.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  29. William F. Vallicella (2000). Does the Cosmological Argument Depend on the Ontological? Faith and Philosophy 17 (4):441-458.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  30. Mogens Lærke (2011). Leibniz's Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 93 (1):58-84.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  31. William Lane Craig (2011). Graham Oppy on the Kalam Cosmological Argument. International Philosophical Quarterly 51 (3):303-330.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  32.  13
    John J. Park (forthcoming). The Kalām Cosmological Argument, the Big Bang, and Atheism. Acta Analytica:1-13.
    While there has been much work on cosmological arguments, novel objections will be presented against the modern day rendition of the Kalām cosmological argument as standardly articulated by William Lane Craig. The conclusion is reached that this cosmological argument and several of its variants do not lead us to believe that there is inevitably a supernatural cause to the universe. Moreover, a conditional argument for atheism will be presented in light of the Big Bang (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  33. Graham Oppy (1991). Craig, Mackie, and the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Religious Studies 27 (2):189 - 197.
    In ‘Professor Mackie and the Kalam Cosmological Argument’ , 367–75), Professor William Lane Craig undertakes to demonstrate that J. L. Mackie's analysis of the kalam cosmological argument in The Miracle of Theism is ‘superficial’, and that Mackie ‘has failed to provide any compelling or even intuitively appealing objection against the argument’ . I disagree with Craig's judgement; for it seems to me that the considerations which Mackie advances do serve to refute the kalam cosmological (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  34. Michael J. Almeida & Neal D. Judisch (2002). A New Cosmological Argument Undone. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 51 (1):55-64.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  35. William Lane Craig (1999). A Swift and Simple Refutation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument? Religious Studies 35 (1):57-72.
    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 (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  36. Arnold T. Guminski (2002). The Kalam Cosmological Argument. Philo 5 (2):196-215.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  37.  87
    Gustavo E. Romero & Daniela Pérez (2012). New Remarks on the Cosmological Argument. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 72 (2):103-113.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  38. Eric Sotnak (1999). The Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Possibility of an Actually Infinite Future. Philo 2 (2):41-52.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  39. Alexander R. Pruss (2004). A Restricted Principle of Sufficient Reason and the Cosmological Argument. Religious Studies 40 (2):165-179.
    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, (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  40.  47
    Drago Djuric (2011). Kalam Cosmological Argument. Filozofija I Društvo 22 (1):29-51.
    In this paper it will be presented polemics about kalam cosmological argument developed in medieval islamic theology and philosophy. Main moments of that polemics was presented for a centuries earlier in Philoponus criticism of Aristotle’s thesis that the world is eternal, and of impossibilty of actual infinity. Philoponus accepts the thesis that actual infinity is impossible, but he thinks that, exactly because of that, world cannot be eternal. Namely, according to Philoponus, something can­not come into being if its (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  41. Jan Dejnozka (1989). Zeno's Paradoxes and the Cosmological Argument. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 25 (2):65 - 81.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  42.  72
    Anthony Brueckner (2001). Van Inwagen on the Cosmological Argument. Philosophical Papers 30 (1):31-40.
    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 (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  43.  80
    William L. Rowe (1983). Self-Existence and the Cosmological Argument. Analysis 43 (1):61 - 62.
    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 (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  44.  75
    Joseph K. Campbell (1996). Hume's Refutation of the Cosmological Argument. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 40 (3):159 - 173.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  45.  25
    Johan De Smedt & Helen De Cruz, The Cognitive Appeal of the Cosmological Argument.
    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 externalise and internalise perspectives.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  46. Mogens Laerke (2011). Spinoza's Cosmological Argument in the 'Ethics'. Journal of the History of Philosophy 49 (4):439 - 462.
    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
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  47.  52
    Robert C. Koons (2001). Defeasible Reasoning, Special Pleading and the Cosmological Argument. Faith and Philosophy 18 (2):192-203.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  48.  41
    William F. Vallicella (1997). The Hume-Edwards Objection to the Cosmological Argument. Journal of Philosophical Research 22:423-443.
    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 (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  49.  28
    Elmar J. Kremer (1997). The Cosmological Argument Without the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Faith and Philosophy 14 (1):62-70.
    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 (...) of the fact that there are contingent beings and that any possible explanation of this fact presupposes that there is a necessary being. We conclude that it is reasonable to believe that there is a necessary being. (shrink)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  50.  22
    Mogens Lærke (2013). Spinoza and the Cosmological Argument According to Letter 12. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 21 (1):57 - 77.
    (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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
1 — 50 / 1000