New remarks on the cosmological argument


Authors
Gustavo E. Romero
Universidad Nacional de La Plata
Abstract
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 valid in hand, we reinterpret the natural language versions of the premises and conclusions in terms of concepts of causality consistent with (and used in) recent work in cosmology done by physicists. In brief: the Kalam argument commits the fallacy of equivocation in a way that seems beyond repair; two of the premises adopted by Aquinas seem dubious when the terms ‘cause’ and ‘causality’ are interpreted in the context of contemporary empirical science. Thus, while there are no problems with whether the conclusions follow logically from their assumptions, the Kalam argument is not viable, and the Aquinas argument does not imply a caused origination of the universe. The assumptions of the latter are at best less than obvious relative to recent work in the sciences. We conclude with mention of a new argument that makes some positive modifications to an alternative variation on Aquinas by Le Poidevin, which nonetheless seems rather weak.
Keywords Causality  Cosmology  Theology  Semantics
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11153-012-9337-6
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 40,000
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Existence of God.Richard Swinburne - 2004 - Oxford University Press.
.R. G. Swinburne - 1989 - Cambridge University Press.
Causality and Modern Science.Mario Bunge - 1979 - Dover Publications.

View all 23 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Sufficient Reason and Reason Enough.Gustavo E. Romero - 2016 - Foundations of Science 21 (3):455-460.

Add more citations

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.
J. Howard Sobel on the Kalam Cosmological Argument.William Lane Craig - 2006 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 36 (4):565-84.
Graham Oppy on the Kalam Cosmological Argument.William Lane Craig - 2011 - International Philosophical Quarterly 51 (3):303-330.
Kalam: A Swift Argument From Origins to First Cause?John Taylor - 1997 - Religious Studies 33 (2):167-179.
Reply to Professor Craig.Graham Oppy - 1995 - Sophia 34 (2):15-29.
Cosmological Argument: A Pragmatic Defense.Evan Sandsmark & Jason L. Megill - 2010 - European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 2 (1):127 - 142.
Closed Systems, Explanations, and the Cosmological Argument.Kevin Davey & Mark Lippelmann - 2007 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 62 (2):89 - 101.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2012-02-24

Total views
114 ( #62,999 of 2,236,044 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
4 ( #460,511 of 2,236,044 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature