Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Finitism, Divisibilty, and the Beginning of the Universe: Replies to Loke and Dumsday.Stephen Puryear - 2016 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 94 (4):808-813.
    Some philosophers contend that the past must be finite in duration, because otherwise reaching the present would have involved the sequential occurrence of an actual infinity of events, which they regard as impossible. I recently developed a new objection to this finitist argument, to which Andrew Ter Ern Loke and Travis Dumsday have replied. Here I respond to the three main points raised in their replies.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Finitism and Divisibility: A Reply to Puryear.Travis Dumsday - 2016 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 94 (3):596-601.
    Puryear develops an objection against a prominent attempt to show that the universe must have a temporal beginning. Here I formulate a reply.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • On Finitism and the Beginning of the Universe: A Reply to Stephen Puryear.Andrew Ter Ern Loke - 2016 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 94 (3):591-595.
    ABSTRACTStephen Puryear argues that William Lane Craig's view, that time as duration is logically prior to the potentially infinite divisions that we make of it, involves the idea that time is prior to any parts we conceive within it. He objects that PWT entails the Priority of the Whole with respect to Events, and that it subverts the argument, used by proponents of the Kalam Cosmological Argument such as Craig, against an eternal past based on the impossibility of traversing an (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation