Sophia 6 (1):8-20 (1967)

Abstract
Brian Medlin has excluded the possibility of something being self-explanatory in anything but a logical sense. Hence any non-logical necessity has always to be in terms of something other than the explicand. In this context, the principle of sufficient reason cannot escape contraction to a form so patently useless that no proponent of the contingency argument would want to employ it. Many of the objections in Section 4 have point, however, only against an argument which uses such an unacceptable form of the principle.The objections in Section 5 are directed against an argument framed in the only other way allowable under Medlin’s dichotomy, but which is of no use to the theist, for the simple-reason that its conclusion is not existential in the required (present actuality) sense. Objections against such an argument would concern the theist only if their validity were so wide as to embrace a truly existential argument as well. As we have-seen it is in just that case that they break down.In neither Section 4 nor 5, therefore, does the article come to grips with the contingency argument. The objections leave it untouched, because neither of Medlin’s notions of contingency and necessity corresponds to that which is operative in the argument
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/BF02789883
Options
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: 53,013
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Les principes et Les causes.Ét Gilson - 1952 - Revue Thomiste 52 (1):39.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Contingency Argument.Brian Medlin - 1966 - Sophia 5 (3):17-34.
How (Not) to Attack the Luck Argument.E. J. Coffman - 2010 - Philosophical Explorations 13 (2):157-166.
A New Look at the Cosmological Argument.Robert C. Koons - 1997 - American Philosophical Quarterly 34 (2):193 - 211.
The Cosmological Argument, Sufficient Reason, and Why-Questions.Dan D. Crawford - 1980 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 11 (2):111 - 122.
In Defence of the Open Question Argument.Caj Strandberg - 2004 - The Journal of Ethics 8 (2):179-196.
What Does an Argument Culture Look Like?David Zarefsky - 2009 - Informal Logic 29 (3):296-308.
A New Cosmological Argument Undone.Michael J. Almeida & Neal D. Judisch - 2002 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 51 (1):55-64.
A Defence of the Explanatory Argument for Physicalism.Jared Bates - 2009 - Philosophical Quarterly 59 (235):315-324.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2013-12-01

Total views
13 ( #688,356 of 2,344,162 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #240,017 of 2,344,162 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes