Faith and Philosophy 18 (2):192-203 (2001)
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 to the defeasible law of causality. I show how Oppy’s critique can be turned into a plausible rebuttal of my argument. However, this rebuttal can be set aside when the original argument is supplemented by a plausible account of the nature of causal priority. Several independent lines of argument in support of this account are outlined
|Keywords||theism cosmological argument defeasible reasoning|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
The Recent Revival of Cosmological Arguments.David Alexander - 2008 - Philosophy Compass 3 (3):541–550.
Similar books and articles
A New Cosmological Argument Undone.Michael J. Almeida & Neal D. Judisch - 2002 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 51 (1):55-64.
In Defense of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.William Lane Craig - 1997 - Faith and Philosophy 14 (2):236-247.
Faulty Reasoning About Default Principles in Cosmological Arguments.Graham Oppy - 2004 - Faith and Philosophy 21 (2):242-249.
Defeasible Reasoning, Special Pleading and the Cosmological Argument.Robert C. Koons - 2001 - Faith and Philosophy 18 (2):192-203.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads163 ( #28,846 of 2,178,184 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #316,497 of 2,178,184 )
How can I increase my downloads?