Kevin Davey
University of Chicago
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 it means to call a system closed, and what it means to call an explanation complete. Our analysis makes no suppositions about the nature of the infinite, and is therefore independent of many of the issues around which contemporary discussions of the cosmological argument have tended to revolve.
Keywords Cosmological argument  Explanation  Closed systems  Causation  First cause  Efficient cause  Causation in esse
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11153-007-9134-9
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 69,018
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

.R. G. Swinburne - 1989 - Cambridge University Press.
The Existence of God.Richard Swinburne - 2004 - Oxford University Press.
The Existence of God.Richard Swinburne - 2004 - Oxford University Press UK.
The Existence of God.Richard Swinburne - 1981 - Philosophical Quarterly 31 (122):85-88.
The Kalām Cosmological Argument.W. Craig - 1980 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 31 (4):408-411.

View all 8 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
157 ( #73,466 of 2,498,492 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #426,910 of 2,498,492 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes