Bruce Reichenbach has formulated a fairly typical version of the. Thomist cosmological argument based on the principle of efficient causality.1 More recently. be advanced against my version of the cosmological argument, 2 two of which 2 Bruce R. Reichenbach, The Cosmological Argument: A Reassessment. Cosmological Argument. Bruce Reichenbach. The cosmological argument is less a particular argument than an argument type. It uses a general pattern of.

Author: Tygojin Bat
Country: Norway
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Business
Published (Last): 24 March 2014
Pages: 17
PDF File Size: 1.23 Mb
ePub File Size: 17.93 Mb
ISBN: 545-6-69178-382-9
Downloads: 36553
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Samugis

My argument, then, would prove the existence of a necessary supernatural being of considerable power who is the cause, though not necessarily in brucr personal manner, of the cosmos.

Cosmological Argument (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The universe began to exist. That is, though no being would exist in every possible world, every world would possess at least one contingent being.

All that this argument shows is that if a being has no sufficient reason for its existence, it has no rational connection with existence, not that it has no connection at all. She need not have had a direct, nonsensory perception of God, no less a mystical experience of at least partial union with God, but at least she must have had experiences in which she perceived worldly items as being God caused.

Craig argues that if the cause were an eternal, nonpersonal, mechanically operating set of conditions, then the universe would exist from eternity. So while Craig thinks that Cantor’s set theoretic definitions yield absurdities when applied to the world of concrete objects, set theorists see no problem argumwnt long as the definitions are maintained.


In other words, it would not explain why there exists the universe that is reported by the members of p. During the Enlightenment, writers such as Georg Wilhelm Leibniz and Samuel Clarke reaffirmed the cosmological argument.


According to the Principle of Sufficient Reason PSRwhat is required is an account in terms of sufficient conditions that provides an explanation why the cause had the effect it did, or alternatively, why this particular effect and not another arose.

A quantum vacuum is not nothing as in Newtonian physics but. But, notes Morriston, if the personal cause intended to nruce the world, and if the intention alone to create is sufficient to bring about the effect, then there is no reason to postulate a argumenr cause of the universe. Nevertheless, we may accept it as an explanation in the sense that we can say that God created that initial event, that he had the intention to do so, and that such an event lies within the power of an omniscient and omnipotent being; not having a body is irrelevant.

It presents us with the brute fact of the existence of the universe, not an explanation for it. In the above example, we simply are unable to discern the intermediate states of the electron’s existence. Its cause, he suggests, is found within the cosmic system itself.

Adgument since I am actual, csomological is at least one possible state of affairs S. Therefore, the necessary being is something other than the universe. Premise 4 is true by virtue of the Principle of Excluded Middle: Interpreting the contingent being in premise 1 as the universe, Bertrand Russell denies that the universe needs an explanation; it just is.

For Rundle, the past and the future are symmetrical; it is only our knowledge of them that is asymmetrical.

Cosmological Argument

Ghislain Guigon – – Religious Studies 47 3: Hence, God is a logically contingent being and so could have not-existed. Since there is no time when the material universe might not have existed, it is not contingent but necessary.


The conclusion that we must draw is that q is the proposition that there exists a necessary supernatural being who is the causal explainer of the universe, that is, pthe Big Conjunctive Fact. Since it is possible that God exists, it is possible that it is possible that no dependent beings exist. It is not that the universe arose out of some prior state, for there was no prior state. Kant held that the cosmological argument, in concluding to the existence of a necessary being, argues for the existence of a being whose nonexistence is absolutely inconceivable.

The world is composed of temporal phenomena preceded by other temporally-ordered phenomena. The universe’s contingency, theists argue, resembles the second case.

From where would we start to count were the past indefinitely extendible?

Explanation and the Cosmological Argument

Likewise, the argument that if the past were infinite, there would be no reason why we arrive at t0 now rather than earlier, fails. Find it on Scholar.

Craig concludes that it is absurd to suppose that such a library is possible in actualitysince the set of red books would simultaneously have to be smaller than the set of all atgument and yet equal in size. Haldane,Atheism and TheismOxford: Two notions of necessity are found in the conclusion to the deductive argument: