2 Remember that last time we arrived at the following interpretation of Aquinas second way: Aquinas 2nd way 1. At least one thing has been caused to come into existence. 2*. Nothing can be the cause of its own existence, or be causally responsible for its own existence. 3. The chain of causes of things coming into existence cannot be infinite. 4. There is a cause of the existence of some things which was not itself caused to exist. (1,2,3) 5. If there is a cause of the existence of some things which was not itself caused to exist, then God C. God (4,5) I suggested that this argument is valid, and that the two premises most open to question are premises 3 and 5. Last time we closed with a discussion of premise 3, the no infinite chains premise. We considered two possible defenses of that premise: the one contained in Aquinas argument, and the argument from the example of Thomson s lamp. Today I d like to begin by talking about the 5th premise of this argument.
3 5. If there is a cause of the existence of some things which was not itself caused to exist, then God There are two different sorts of worries about this premise. The first is that, strictly speaking, the premise should say that if there is at least one cause of the existence of some things which was not itself caused to exist, then at least one God After all, nothing rules out the chain of causes looking like this: This would be a non-infinite causal chain in which nothing is causally responsible for its own existence; but there are two uncaused causes in this chain, not one. Since the idea that the chain of causes has this shape is consistent with everything in Aquinas argument, it looks like that argument, strictly speaking, only can be taken to show that there is at least one God, not that there is exactly one. So it (perhaps) proves the truth of theism, but not the truth of monotheism. This would not make the argument insignificant; if it succeeded in ruling out atheism in favor of theism of some variety or other, that would be a significant achievement. A more worrying weakness is that the argument seems to show only, at best, that there at one time was at least one God.
4 But there s another, more serious worry about premise (5): it is just not obvious that it s true that if there is an uncaused cause of things, that that thing would be God. Consider, for example, the following (obviously, oversimplified) statement of Big Bang theory of the origins of the universe: The first event in the history of the universe was an explosion of a an extremely dense collection of particles, with every particle moving apart from every other particle. This event had no cause -- in particular, no intelligent being set it into motion -- and, further, every subsequent event has been an effect of this event. This is a description of the way that the universe could be, according to which there is a cause of the existence of things which was not itself caused to occur. But would it be reasonable to say that, if this picture of the universe is true, God exists? It seems not. After all, if this view were correct, what would God be -- the event of the Big Bang? The condensed matter which exploded in the Big Bang? Either way, God would no longer exist. Moreover, these things lack too many of the attributes central to our conception of God -- such as, for example, personhood, intelligence, love, and moral goodness. This brings out an important aspect of all arguments for the existence of God. All such arguments are really arguments for the conclusion that a being with such-and-such characteristics exists -- Aquinas second way, for example, is an argument that a being with the characteristic of being an uncaused cause So, all such arguments raise the question: do we really know that any being with that characteristic would be God? The discussion above is a way of raising a doubt about the idea that we can be sure that any uncaused cause would be God.
5 Here is a possible reply on Aquinas s behalf. Perhaps Aquinas is not talking about a temporal series of causes of existence; some indication of this is given by the fact that Aquinas did not think that we could know on the basis of reason that the age of the universe was finite. Perhaps when Aquinas talks about causes in this argument, he is talking about sustaining causes. The sustaining cause of something is not just what starts off its existence; it is also what keeps it in existence over time. Consider DeBartolo Hall, from one moment to the next. It is surely possible that it go out of existence at any moment (even if, fortunately, quite unlikely). So why doesn t it? What is the explanation of the fact that DeBartolo Hall continues to exist? It seems as though any explanation to which one appeals will be such that we can ask the same questions about it -- unless that something is such that it couldn t fail to exist. Perhaps such a thing would really deserve the name God. To give this sort of response to our worries about premise (5), we would have to make explicit some of the assumptions about possibility, necessity, and explanation we just made, and see how these notions might play a role in an argument for God s existence. Aquinas tries to provide just such an argument in his 3rd way.
6 The crucial notion for understanding Aquinas second way was the notion of an efficient cause of a thing -- the cause of a thing s existence. The crucial notions for understanding his third way are the notions of necessity and possibility. Let s begin by discussing what it means for something to be possible. It is important to see that Aquinas is using the word in a very broad sense: something is possible just in case it could have happened --- no matter how absurd, or bizarre, it is. So, for example, it is possible that a pink elephant is presently running through south quad, or that a talking donkey will one day be a professor of philosophy at Notre Dame. It is not possible, in this sense, that there could be a three-sided plane closed Euclidean figure with four angles -- it isn t just that this scenario would be silly or surprising; on reflection, we can see, on the contrary, that the scenario really does not make sense. In the same way, we can see that it simply could not be the case that I have an object in my office which is bright red and bright green all over. This is what we mean when we say that the scenario is impossible: it could not have been the case. Once you understand what it means for a scenario to be impossible, you can understand what it means for a scenario to be necessary: a scenario is necessary just in case its opposite is impossible; or, equivalent, just in case it is impossible for that scenario not to be actual. Can you think of any examples of necessary truths -- claims about the world which are not just true, but necessarily true? There s one more term which will be important to master, not just for understanding Aquinas argument, but also for understanding several other arguments which we will be discussing later: contingent. A contingent truth is a truth that is not necessary; and, in general, a contingent claim is one which is possibly true and possible false. So every claim about the world falls into exactly one of the following three categories: necessary, impossible, or contingent.
7 With these terms in hand, let s look at Aquinas argument: This is a complex argument. The easiest way to think about it is by breaking it into two parts.
8 With these terms in hand, let s look at Aquinas argument: In the first part, Aquinas argues from the fact that some things exist only contingently to the conclusion that there is some being which exists necessarily. In the second part, he argues that if there is some being which exists necessarily, then God We ll focus our attention on the first half of the argument.
9 Aquinas argument for the existence of a necessary being. We know what Aquinas is arguing for: C. There is something which exists necessarily. But what are the premises?
10 Aquinas argument for the existence of a necessary being. We know what Aquinas is arguing for: C. There is something which exists necessarily. But what are the premises? A first premise is clear enough: There are something things which possibly exist, and possibly do not exist. i.e., 1. There are some things which exist contingently.
11 Aquinas argument for the existence of a necessary being. We know what Aquinas is arguing for: C. There is something which exists necessarily. But what are the premises? 1. There are some things which exist contingently. In a second premise, Aquinas draws a connection between possible nonexistence and nonexistence at some time:
12 Aquinas argument for the existence of a necessary being. We know what Aquinas is arguing for: C. There is something which exists necessarily. But what are the premises? 1. There are some things which exist contingently. Aquinas next sentence begins with the word therefore ; this is a good indication that he takes what he is saying with this sentence to be something which follows from one or more of the preceding premises, rather than an independent premise. What he says is that if everything can not be -- i.e., if everything exists only contingently -- then at one time there would have been nothing in existence. Let s suppose for now that this is a third premise, which is supposed to follow from (1) and (2):
13 Aquinas argument for the existence of a necessary being. We know what Aquinas is arguing for: C. There is something which exists necessarily. But what are the premises? 1. There are some things which exist contingently. The next sentence considers this possibility -- the possibility that at one time nothing existed -- and draws the conclusion that if at one time nothing existed, then it would be true even now that nothing 4. If at one time nothing existed, then now nothing
14 Aquinas argument for the existence of a necessary being. We know what Aquinas is arguing for: C. There is something which exists necessarily. But what are the premises? 1. There are some things which exist contingently. 4. If at one time nothing existed, then now nothing But, of course, this is crazy -- as Aquinas recognizes. Some things do definitely exist now, like you and me. This obvious claim is the 5th and final premise that, I think, can be found in the text. 5. Some things now exist.
15 Aquinas argument for the existence of a necessary being. So now we have isolated a bunch of premises: 1. There are some things which exist contingently. 4. If at one time nothing existed, then now nothing 5. Some things now exist. and a conclusion. C. There is something which exists necessarily. Our first question is: do these premises give us a valid argument for the conclusion? This is certainly not obvious at a first glance. A good strategy is to begin by looking at the premises, and seeing whether any two of the premises can be put together to prove a further claim.
16 1. There are some things which exist contingently. 4. If at one time nothing existed, then now nothing 5. Some things now exist. One obvious place to start is with the last two premises. These seem to be of the form: if p, then q and not-q So, from these it should follow that not-p -- i.e., that 6. It is not the case that at one time nothing existed. (4,5) C. There is something which exists necessarily.
17 1. There are some things which exist contingently. 4. If at one time nothing existed, then now nothing 5. Some things now exist. 6. It is not the case that at one time nothing existed. (4,5) But now look at (3) and (6): these seem to be related in just the way that (4) and (5) were. That is, (3) seems to be a claim of the form if p, then q while (6) says that not q. So it should follow from these that 7. It is not the case that everything exists only contingently. (3,6) C. There is something which exists necessarily.
18 1. There are some things which exist contingently. 4. If at one time nothing existed, then now nothing 5. Some things now exist. 6. It is not the case that at one time nothing existed. (4,5) 7. It is not the case that everything exists only contingently. (3,6) But now think for a second about what (7) says: it says that it is not the case that everything is a contingent being. But that means that it must be true that something is not a contingent being. 8. There is something which does not exist contingently. (7) C. There is something which exists necessarily.
19 1. There are some things which exist contingently. 4. If at one time nothing existed, then now nothing 5. Some things now exist. 7. It is not the case that everything exists only contingently. (3,6) 6. It is not the case that at one time nothing existed. (4,5) 8. There is something which does not exist contingently. (7) But this is just another way of stating our conclusion; if there is something that does not exist contingently, that means that it is not possible for it not to exist. But that is just another way of saying that it exists necessarily. C. There is something which exists necessarily. (8)
20 So it looks like we have our reconstruction of Aquinas argument: 1. There are some things which exist contingently. 4. If at one time nothing existed, then now nothing 5. Some things now exist. 6. It is not the case that at one time nothing existed. (4,5) 7. It is not the case that everything exists only contingently. (3,6) 8. There is something which does not exist contingently. (7) Is this argument valid? The argument as a whole is valid if and only if each of the 5 sub-arguments that make it up are valid. These are: from 1 & 2 to 3 from 4 & 5 to 6 from 3 & 6 to 7 from 7 to 8 from 8 to C We have discussed the last four of these. But how about the first one: the inference from premises 1 & 2 to 3? Is this valid? C. There is something which exists necessarily. (8)
21 So it looks like we have our reconstruction of Aquinas argument: 1. There are some things which exist contingently. 4. If at one time nothing existed, then now nothing 5. Some things now exist. 6. It is not the case that at one time nothing existed. (4,5) 7. It is not the case that everything exists only contingently. (3,6) 8. There is something which does not exist contingently. (7) We have discussed the last four of these. But how about the first one: the inference from premises 1 & 2 to 3? Is this valid? First, let s ask whether 3 follows from 2 by itself. This seems to be analogous to the following inference: 2*. If a person sings sometimes, then there is some time at which that person sings *. If everyone sings sometimes, then there is some time at which everyone sings. Is this inference valid? C. There is something which exists necessarily. (8)
22 So it looks like we have our reconstruction of Aquinas argument: 1. There are some things which exist contingently. 4. If at one time nothing existed, then now nothing 5. Some things now exist. 6. It is not the case that at one time nothing existed. (4,5) 7. It is not the case that everything exists only contingently. (3,6) 8. There is something which does not exist contingently. (7) Now, let s ask whether 3 follows from 1 & 2. This seems to be analogous to the following inference: 1*. There are some people that sing sometimes. 2*. If a person sings sometimes, then there is some time at which that person sings *. If everyone sings sometimes, then there is some time at which everyone sings. Is this inference valid? Even if this inference were valid, a separate problem would be that premise (2) does not look clearly true. Can you see why? C. There is something which exists necessarily. (8)
23 1. There are some things which exist contingently. 4. If at one time nothing existed, then now nothing 5. Some things now exist. 6. It is not the case that at one time nothing existed. (4,5) 7. It is not the case that everything exists only contingently. (3,6) 8. There is something which does not exist contingently. (7) C. There is something which exists necessarily. (8) If (3) were true, then it would seem very plausible that we would have a sound argument for the existence of God. Premises (4) and (5) each appear to be true, and all of the logical inferences from (3) to the conclusion seem fine. Unfortunately, it does not seem that Aquinas has given us any good reason to believe that (3) is true. Aquinas general strategy in this argument, however -- arguing for the existence of God on the basis of reflection on necessity and possibility -- has proven to be quite a popular one. Next week we will begin by discussing the efforts of Gottfried Leibniz, a 17th century German philosopher, to improve on Aquinas.
Why is there something rather than nothing? Leibniz Avicenna, Proof of the Necessary of Existence Avicenna offers a proof for the existence of God based on the nature of possibility and necessity. First,
Creation & necessity Today we turn to one of the central claims made about God in the Nicene Creed: that God created all things visible and invisible. In the Catechism, creation is described like this:
Aquinas s Third Way Keith Burgess-Jackson 24 September 2017 Cosmology, a branch of astronomy (or astrophysics), is The study of the origin and structure of the universe. 1 Thus, a thing is cosmological
2017 Summer Preparation Work Philosophy of Religion Theme 1 Arguments for the existence of God Instructions: Philosophy of Religion - Arguments for the existence of God The Cosmological Argument 1. Watch
Simplicity and Why the Universe Exists QUENTIN SMITH I If big bang cosmology is true, then the universe began to exist about 15 billion years ago with a 'big bang', an explosion of matter, energy and space
Am I free? Freedom vs. Fate We ve been discussing the free will defense as a response to the argument from evil. This response assumes something about us: that we have free will. But what does this mean?
Aquinas Cosmological argument in everyday language P1. If there is no first cause, there cannot be any effects. P2. But we have observed that there are effects, like observing change in the world. C: So
The Cosmological Argument Reading Questions The Cosmological Argument: Elementary Version The Cosmological Argument: Intermediate Version The Cosmological Argument: Advanced Version Summary of the Cosmological
Philosophy 1100: Introduction to Ethics Critical Thinking Lecture 2 Background Material for the Exercise on Inference Indicators Inference-Indicators and the Logical Structure of an Argument 1. The Idea
Philosophy of Religion Aquinas' Third Way Modalized Robert E. Maydole Davidson College firstname.lastname@example.org ABSTRACT: The Third Way is the most interesting and insightful of Aquinas' five arguments for
The Cosmological Argument Stage I 1. Causal Premise: Everything of type T has a cause. [note: cause purpose]. 2. Something of type T exists. 3. There is a reason X for thinking that there is a First Cause
THEISM AND BELIEF Etymological note: deus = God in Latin; theos = God in Greek. A taxonomy of doxastic attitudes Belief: a mental state the content of which is taken as true or an assertion put forward
ARTICLE PRESENTATION, EXAMPLE 2: AQUINAS PHI 101: INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY DR. DAVE YOUNT 1. BEARINGS/BIO: Briefly describe the assigned philosopher/author and state the name of the assigned material
1 What God Could Have Made By Heimir Geirsson and Michael Losonsky I. Introduction Atheists have argued that if there is a God who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, then God would have made
Proof of the Necessary of Existence by Avicenna (Ibn Sīnā), various excerpts (~1020-1037 AD) *** The Long Version from Kitab al-najat (The Book of Salvation), second treatise (~1020 AD) translated by Jon
Component 2 Philosophy of Religion Theme 1: Arguments for the existence of God inductive This theme considers how the philosophy of religion has, over time, influenced and been influenced by developments
An Outline of David Hume s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion An outline of David Hume s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion By J. Alexander Rutherford I. Introduction Part one sets the roles, relationships,
264 BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTICES BENEDIKT PAUL GÖCKE Ruhr-Universität Bochum István Aranyosi. God, Mind, and Logical Space: A Revisionary Approach to Divinity. Palgrave Frontiers in Philosophy of Religion.
Broad on God Broad on Theological Arguments I. The Ontological Argument Sample Ontological Argument: Suppose that God is the most perfect or most excellent being. Consider two things: (1)An entity that
Aquinas, The Five Ways 1. Preliminaries: Before offering his famous five proofs for God, Aquinas first asks: Is the existence of God self-evident? That is, if we just sat around thinking about it without
Philosophical Perspectives, 14, Action and Freedom, 2000 TRANSFER PRINCIPLES AND MORAL RESPONSIBILITY Eleonore Stump Saint Louis University John Martin Fischer University of California, Riverside It is
5 A Modal Version of the Ontological Argument E. J. L O W E Moreland, J. P.; Sweis, Khaldoun A.; Meister, Chad V., Jul 01, 2013, Debating Christian Theism The original version of the ontological argument
The Cosmological Argument The Cosmological Argument is an argument that attempts to demonstrate the existence of God using only one starting assumption: Something exists. 1. Three sorts of being: Whatever
The free will defense Last time we began discussing the central argument against the existence of God, which I presented as the following reductio ad absurdum of the proposition that God exists: 1. God
Fate and free will From the first person point of view, one of the most obvious, and important, facts about the world is that some things are up to us at least sometimes, we are able to do one thing, and
The Ontological Argument for the existence of God Pedro M. Guimarães Ferreira S.J. PUC-Rio Boston College, July 13th. 2011 The ontological argument (henceforth, O.A.) for the existence of God has a long
University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Faculty Publications - Department of Philosophy Philosophy, Department of 1980 The Cosmological Argument, Sufficient Reason,
St. Anselm s Ontological Argument for the Existence of God Rex Jasper V. Jumawan Fr. Dexter Veloso Introduction Have you ever sought God? Do you have any idea of God? Do you believe that God exist? Throughout
The Ontological Argument Arguments for God s Existence One of the classic questions of philosophy and philosophical argument is: s there a God? Of course there are and have been many different definitions
TOPIC: Lecture 4.2 Aquinas Phil Religion Aquinas Cosmological Arguments for the existence of God. Critiques of Aquinas arguments. KEY TERMS/ GOALS: Cosmological argument. The problem of Infinite Regress.
The Problem of Evil Proofs of Non-existence Proofs of non-existence are strange; strange enough in fact that some have claimed that they cannot be done. One problem is with even stating non-existence claims:
The Existence of God The Kalam Cosmological Argument Richard G. Howe, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, Southern Evangelical Seminary Past President, International Society of Christian Apologetics The Kalam Cosmological
Chance, Chaos and the Principle of Sufficient Reason Alexander R. Pruss Department of Philosophy Baylor University October 8, 2015 Contents The Principle of Sufficient Reason Against the PSR Chance Fundamental
Copyright Jonathan Bennett 2017. All rights reserved [Brackets] enclose editorial explanations. Small dots enclose material that has been added, but can be read as though it were part of the original text.
Aporia vol. 18 no. 2 2008 The Ontological Parody: A Reply to Joshua Ernst s Charles Hartshorne and the Ontological Argument Charles Hartshorne argues that Kant s criticisms of Anselm s ontological argument
Logical Puzzles and the Concept of God [This is a short semi-serious discussion between me and three former classmates in March 2010. S.H.] [Sue wrote on March 24, 2010:] See attached cartoon What s your
John Hick on whether God could be an infinite person Daniel Howard-Snyder Western Washington University Abstract: "Who or what is God?," asks John Hick. A theist might answer: God is an infinite person,
3 The Problem of Absolute Reality How can the truth be found? How can we determine what is the objective reality, what is the absolute truth? By starting at the beginning, having first eliminated all preconceived
Anselmian Theism and Created Freedom: Response to Grant and Staley Katherin A. Rogers University of Delaware I thank Grant and Staley for their comments, both kind and critical, on my book Anselm on Freedom.
The Problem of Evil Why would a good God create a world where bad things happen? The Theist s Response God has a plan. Theism has many responses to the problem of evil. But they all seem to involve, in
David Hume: Critique of Cosmological Argument Critique of Cosmological Argument DAVID HUME (1711-1776) David Hume is one of the most important philosophers in the history of philosophy. Born in Edinburgh,
P. Weingartner, God s existence. Can it be proven? A logical commentary on the five ways of Thomas Aquinas, Ontos, Frankfurt 2010. Pp. 116. Thinking of the problem of God s existence, most formal logicians
Theistic Arguments: The Craig Program, 2 Edwin Chong February 27, 2005 Cosmological Argument God makes sense of the origin of the universe. Kalam cosmological argument. [Craig 1979] Kalam: An Arabic term
Cosmological Arguments Cosmology: u Study of the origins of the Universe u Why is there something rather than nothing? u Where did everything come from? u Where did the stars come from? u Aquinas: u If
Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision 3. Why does anything at all exist? 4. Why did the universe begin? 5. Why is the universe fine-tuned for life? Sunday, February 24, 2013, 10 to 10:50 am, in
Philosophical Proof of God: Derived from Principles in Bernard Lonergan s Insight May 2014 Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D. Magis Center of Reason and Faith Lonergan s proof may be stated as follows: Introduction
Aristotle and Aquinas G. J. Mattey Spring, 2017 / Philosophy 1 Aristotle as Metaphysician Plato s greatest student was Aristotle (384-322 BC). In metaphysics, Aristotle rejected Plato s theory of forms.
Lecture 8: Refutation Philosophy 130 October 25 & 27, 2016 O Rourke I. Administrative A. Schedule see syllabus as well! B. Questions? II. Refutation A. Arguments are typically used to establish conclusions.
Lecture 8: Refutation Philosophy 130 March 19 & 24, 2015 O Rourke I. Administrative A. Roll B. Schedule C. Exam #1 comments on difficult spots; if you have questions about this, please let me know D. Discussion
What am I? An immaterial thing: the case for dualism Today we turn to our third big question: What are you? We can focus this question a little bit by introducing the idea of a physical or material thing.
Etchemendy, Tarski, and Logical Consequence 1 Jared Bates, University of Missouri Southwest Philosophy Review 15 (1999): 47 54. Abstract: John Etchemendy (1990) has argued that Tarski's definition of logical
Science and the Future of Mankind Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Scripta Varia 99, Vatican City 2001 www.pas.va/content/dam/accademia/pdf/sv99/sv99-berti.pdf THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCIENCE, RELIGION
Ethics Demonstrated in Geometrical Order Benedict Spinoza Copyright Jonathan Bennett 2017. All rights reserved [Brackets] enclose editorial explanations. Small dots enclose material that has been added,
Thomas Aquinas The Treatise on the Divine Nature Summa Theologiae I 1 13 Translated, with Commentary, by Brian Shanley Introduction by Robert Pasnau Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. Indianapolis/Cambridge
Does God exist? The argument from evil There are two especially important arguments against belief in God. The first is based on the (alleged) lack of evidence for God s existence, and the rule that one
Philosophy Study, November 2017, Vol. 7, No. 11, 595-600 doi: 10.17265/2159-5313/2017.11.002 D DAVID PUBLISHING Defending Davidson s Anti-skepticism Argument: A Reply to Otavio Bueno Mohammad Reza Vaez
Boghossian & Harman on the analytic theory of the a priori PHIL 83104 November 2, 2011 Both Boghossian and Harman address themselves to the question of whether our a priori knowledge can be explained in
Philos Stud (2007) 134:19 24 DOI 10.1007/s11098-006-9016-5 ORIGINAL PAPER Is Klein an infinitist about doxastic justification? Michael Bergmann Published online: 7 March 2007 Ó Springer Science+Business
Getting To God The Basic Evidence For The Truth of Christian Theism truehorizon.org A True Worldview A worldview is like a set of glasses through which you see everything in life. It is the lens that brings
This paper is dedicated to my unforgettable friend Boris Isaevich Lamdon. The Development of Laws of Formal Logic of Aristotle The essence of formal logic The aim of every science is to discover the laws
Portfolio Project Phil 251A Logic Fall 2012 Due: Friday, December 7 1 Overview The portfolio is a semester-long project that should display your logical prowess applied to real-world arguments. The arguments
The Kalam Cosmological Argument provides no support for theism 0) Introduction 1) A contradiction follows from William Lane Craig's position 2) A tensed theory of time entails that it's not the case that
智覺學苑 Academy of Wisdom and Enlightenment Posted: Aug 2, 2017 www.awe-edu.com info@ AWE-edu.com Aquinas 5 Proofs for God exists http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasfiveways_argumentanalysis.htm
5.7 Validity in inductive, conductive, and abductive arguments REMEMBER as explained in an earlier section formal language is used for expressing relations in abstract form, based on clear and unambiguous
Stance Volume 6 2013 29 Fatalism and Truth at a Time Chad Marxen Abstract: In this paper, I will examine an argument for fatalism. I will offer a formalized version of the argument and analyze one of the
Swinburne: The Problem of Evil THE PROBLEM: The Problem of Evil: An all-powerful being would be able to prevent evil from happening in the world. An all-good being would want to prevent evil from happening
What is real? Heaps, bald things, and tall things Our topic today is another paradox which has been known since ancient times: the paradox of the heap, also called the sorites paradox ( sorites is Greek
In Defense of Radical Empiricism Joseph Benjamin Riegel A thesis submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Is the Existence of the Best Possible World Logically Impossible? Anders Kraal ABSTRACT: Since the 1960s an increasing number of philosophers have endorsed the thesis that there can be no such thing as
The Problem with Complete States: Freedom, Chance and the Luck Argument Richard Johns Department of Philosophy University of British Columbia August 2006 Revised March 2009 The Luck Argument seems to show
Forthcoming in Faith and Philosophy BEGINNINGLESS PAST AND ENDLESS FUTURE: REPLY TO CRAIG Wes Morriston In a recent paper, I claimed that if a familiar line of argument against the possibility of a beginningless
FROM FIRST EFFICIENT CAUSE TO GOD: SCOTUS ON THE IDENTIFICATION STAGE OF THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT Timothy O'Connor in John Duns Scotus: Metaphysics and Ethics, ed. L. Honnefelder, R. Wood, and M. Dreyer.
The St. Petersburg paradox & the two envelope paradox Consider the following bet: The St. Petersburg I am going to flip a fair coin until it comes up heads. If the first time it comes up heads is on the
St. Anselm s versions of the ontological argument Descartes is not the first philosopher to state this argument. The honor of being the first to present this argument fully and clearly belongs to Saint
Page 1 of 16 The Existence of God By G. Brady Lenardos (c) 1995, 2000 G. Brady Lenardos In August of 1993, my friend, Jeff McCain, and I participated in a debate at the Orange County Regional Gathering
Foreknowledge, evil, and compatibility arguments Jeff Speaks January 25, 2011 1 Warfield s argument for compatibilism................................ 1 2 Why the argument fails to show that free will and
Cosmological Arguments Arguments that God exists: Review Ontological: the existence of God follows from the very concept of God. exp: Anselm s Ontological Argument This is the only a priori argument for
398 Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic Volume 38, Number 3, Summer 1997 Situations in Which Disjunctive Syllogism Can Lead from True Premises to a False Conclusion S. V. BHAVE Abstract Disjunctive Syllogism,
1 In Search of the Ontological Argument Richard Oxenberg Abstract We can attend to the logic of Anselm's ontological argument, and amuse ourselves for a few hours unraveling its convoluted word-play, or
David E. Alexander and Daniel Johnson, eds. Calvinism and the Problem of Evil. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2016. 318 pp. $62.00 (hbk); $37.00 (paper). Walters State Community College As David
24.09x Minds and Machines Saul Kripke, Naming and Necessity Excerpt from Saul Kripke, Naming and Necessity (Harvard, 1980). Identity theorists have been concerned with several distinct types of identifications:
Res Cogitans Volume 5 Issue 1 Article 20 6-4-2014 Saving the Substratum: Interpreting Kant s First Analogy Kevin Harriman Lewis & Clark College Follow this and additional works at: http://commons.pacificu.edu/rescogitans
Page 1/7 RICHARD TAYLOR  Suppose you were strolling in the woods and, in addition to the sticks, stones, and other accustomed litter of the forest floor, you one day came upon some quite unaccustomed
University of Notre Dame Fall, 2015 Arguments Philosophy is difficult. If questions are easy to decide, they usually don t end up in philosophy The easiest way to proceed on difficult questions is to formulate
The Five Ways THOMAS AQUINAS (1225-1274) Aquinas was an Italian theologian and philosopher who spent his life in the Dominican Order, teaching and writing. His writings set forth in a systematic form a
The Language of Analogy in the Five Ways of St. Thomas Aquinas Moses Aaron T. Angeles, Ph.D. San Beda College The Five Ways of St. Thomas in proving the existence of God is, needless to say, a most important