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.
|Country:||Bosnia & Herzegovina|
|Published (Last):||18 March 2016|
|PDF File Size:||2.50 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||4.68 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
That is, if God necessarily exists in the sense that if he exists, he exists in all possible worlds, it remains logically possible that God does not exist in any and all possible world. For each past or future series of events, beginning from the present, there can always be a subsequent cosmooogical.
This is because every being is either contingent, necessary, or impossible; and, obviously, an impossible being cannot causally explain anything. But once the fool realizes this he will withhold his consent, since he will rightly see premise 2 as begging the question against the nontheist opponent of the argument.
This conclusion is licensed by the modal principle: To close the gap arguments are needed to show that the being who is the causal explainer of the existence of the universe has all of the other required divine perfections.
Rowe takes the conditional as necessarily true in virtue of the classical concept of God, according to which God is free to decide whether or not to create dependent beings. Beyond this, however, the point stands that the weak PSR entails the strong PSR, and as we argued above, defenders of the cosmological argument do not need such a strong version of the PSR to construct their argument.
Interestingly enough, this approach was anticipated by Aquinas in his third way in his Summa Theologica I,q.
Cosmological Argument (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Hence, quantum-mechanical considerations show that the causal proposition richenbach limited in its application, if applicable at all, and consequently that a probabilistic argument for a cause of the Big Bang cannot go through. They phrase the argument in terms of contingent and necessary propositions. The best one can say is that the universe is finite with respect to the past, cosmologicap that it was an event with a beginning.
Rather, he contends that a more viable account of the necessary being is as a purposive agent with desires, intentions, and beliefs, whose activity is guided but not determined by its goals, a view consistent with identifying the necessary being as God.
The application of this definition to finite and infinite sets yields results that Craig finds counter-intuitive but which mathematicians see as our best understanding for comparing the size of sets. On this reading, there is not one but there are many cosjological beings, all internal to the universe.
Cosmological Argument (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Summer Edition)
If we think of space as a particular type of relation between objects, the removal of all objects everything would leave nothing, including relations. Therefore, it is not possible that there is an explanation for the fact that God does not exist.
Hence, God, as Swinburne notes For another, a difference exists between predictability and causality. In defense of premise 2, Craig develops both a priori and a posteriori arguments. Before the present event could occur the event immediately prior to it would have to occur; and before that event could occur, the event immediately prior to it would have to occur; and so on ad infinitum. Likewise the connection between the essential properties must be necessary. This is coemological to discern compatibilities and incompatibilities Attfield Some force in the universe not only counteracts gravity but pushes the galaxies in the universe apart ever faster.
Hence, it is possible that there are no dependent beings; that is, that the cosmologicwl is contingent.
For every fact, it is possible that there is an explanation for it. On the other hand, a personal explanation, given in terms of the intentional actions of a person, is simpler and no explanatory power is lost. Similarly, although any given past event of the universe is finitely distant in time from now, a beginning or initial event can be ruled out; for any given event there is a possible earlier event.
If the universe is infinite, each state would be a brute fact, for though each state would be explained by the causal conditions found in prior states plus the relevant physical laws, there is no reason why any particular state holds true rather than another, since the laws of physics cosmooogical compatible with diverse states.
Contingent beings alone cannot cause or explain the existence of a contingent being. Indeed, it is hard to see cosmolgoical one could even make an argument for it cosmplogical already assuming it. This entry has no external links. Bruce Reichenbach Augsburg College. For example, if God or the universe is logically or absolutely necessary, something would not only exist but would have to exist even if nothing else existed.
Explanation and the Cosmological Argument
It follows that although the future is actually finite, it does not require an end to the universe, for there is always a possible subsequent event 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. Something has a beginning just in case that the time during which it has existed is finite.
Beginning from today one can always add another day to the past or future, since an infinity of past days exists in the same way as an infinity of future days.