1 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, we must lay out Avicenna s view of causation, essence, and existence. 1. The Four Causes: Avicenna adopts Aristotle s view of causation, according to which all things have 4 causes: (1) Material Cause: The material that a thing is made of. (2) Formal Cause: The form of the thing; the pattern or essence which the materials are arranged in conformity with. (3) Efficient Cause: The thing(s) that bring about the change; i.e., bring the matter and the form together. (4) Final Cause: The end or purpose of a thing; (often, this is the cause of the efficient cause; i.e., the reason by which the efficient cause acts). So, for instance, the cause of some statue in the Parthenon is as follows: (1) Material Cause: The slab of marble. (2) Formal Cause: The blueprint, or design, according to which the sculptor sculpts it. (3) Efficient Cause: The sculptor. (4) Final Cause: The reason for, or purpose of, the statue s existence which is to adorn the Parthenon. 2. Essence vs. Existence: Avicenna also borrows the following distinction from Aristotle: Essence: What a thing is; i.e., the reality by virtue of which a thing is what it is. Existence: That a thing is; i.e., a thing actually existing in reality. Clearly, these two concepts are distinct from one another. Avicenna writes, You must know that you understand the concept of triangle while in doubt as to whether or not concrete existence is attributed to triangle. (Remarks )
2 The essence of a triangle is its triangularity i.e., to be a 3-sided, 3-angled thing. You can contemplate the essence of, or the WHAT IT IS to be, a triangle but this will not tell you THAT a triangle exists in reality. 3. Necessary vs. Contingent Existents: Everything that exists must fall into one of two categories. Either it exists, but COULD NOT have failed to exist; or, it exists, but COULD have failed to exist. He calls the former a necessarily existent and the latter a possibly existent. He writes, The necessarily existent is the existence that must be, whereas the possibly existent is the one that has no must about it in any way, whether in terms of its existence or nonexistence. (Book of Salvation) Contemporary philosophers use the following terms: Necessary Being: A thing that cannot fail to exist. It must exist. Positing its nonexistence results in a contradiction. Contingent Being: A thing that can exist, and can also not exist. Positing its nonexistence does not result in a contradiction. 4. Why Contingent Beings Require a Cause, and Necessary Beings Do Not: Avicenna adds that possible (i.e., contingent) beings require a cause for their existence, while necessary beings do not. They have no cause. Why is this? Consider again the essence of the triangle (i.e., triangularity). Its essence doesn t necessitate its own existence. Its essence is INDIFFERENT to existence, so to speak. So, it needs something external to itself to tip the scales toward existence by causing that essence to be imprinted onto some matter. Of contingent beings, Avicenna writes, Thus, with respect to its essence, it would be a thing that is neither necessary nor impossible. That to which possibility belongs in essence does not come into existence by its essence It follows that the existence of every possible thing is from another. (Remarks and Admonitions) In short, just by considering the essence of a triangle, we see that it needs an efficient cause in order to exist. It needs existence to be ADDED TO its essence in order to exist in actuality (so it s possible for any triangle to fail to exist, since its cause could have failed). [He also confusing says that a contingent being is possible through itself but necessary through another. Note that this does NOT contingent beings are somehow also 2
3 NECESSARY beings. Rather, by this he means only that, if the complete cause of some effect is present, then the effect MUST occur. For instance, once the complete cause of your parents conceiving you was present, it was then GUARANTEED that you would exist.] On the other hand, Avicenna says that a necessary being would be one whose essence is such that it DOES necessitate its own existence. It doesn t need existence ADDED to its essence in order to exist. And this can only be because its essence IS existence. Any being with THAT sort of essence simply MUST exist. For, what it is is pure existence. Thus, it s impossible for such a being to NOT exist. [For this reason, some see elements of The Ontological Argument in Avicenna s line of reasoning. Can you see why?] Does that make sense? The following may help: Even though I only presented two categories of existence above, Avicenna says that, conceptually, we can divide existents into THREE categories: (1) The necessary, (2) The possible, and (3) The impossible. An impossible being would be one such that positing its existence results in a contradiction. In other words, its essence is such that it necessitates NON-existence. For instance, a square circle. The essence of (i.e., the what it is to be) a square circle is to be a figure composed of four sides of equal lengths, at right angles to one another, such that every point of the figure is equidistant from some central point. It is clear that positing the existence of such a thing results in a contradiction. Its essence guarantees its non-existence. A necessary being is the opposite of this. Positing the NON-existence of such a thing results in a contradiction. Its essence guarantees its existence. [Let me try to motivate Avicenna s claim in another way. Perhaps this is not so very counter-intuitive if we consider an analogous case: Contingent vs. Necessary TRUTHS. Contingently true propositions are ones that could be true, and could be false. They do not contain the reason for their own truth within themselves. For instance, <Chad exists> is contingently true (i.e., it is true, but it could have been false and in fact WILL be false again someday). That proposition doesn t explain its own truth. Rather, its truthmaker (i.e., the reason for its truth, or the THING THAT MAKES IT TRUE) is me, Chad, the physical object. So, the truthmaker for <Chad exists> is something EXTERNAL to that proposition. Contrast this with a necessary truth i.e., a truth that CANNOT be false, for instance, <All bachelors are male>. This proposition is necessarily true. It did not start being true, and it will never stop being true. It is impossible for it to be false. For, it contains the reason for its own truth WITHIN itself. Namely, the proposition is true because bachelor just MEANS unmarried male. Its truthmaker is in some sense INTERNAL to itself. Now imagine that truths are not the only things that are like this, but that existence can be like this too.] 3
4 5. The Proof: Here is (my synopsis of) Avicenna s proof for God s existence. Even this simplified version is pretty complicated, so follow it carefully: (MP) Main Proof 1. Something exists. 2. That thing is either (a) necessary or (b) possible; i.e., contingent. 3. If (a), then a necessary being (i.e., a necessarily existent ) exists. 4. If (b), then a necessary being exists. 5. Therefore, a necessary being exists. (MP-4) Proof for MP, premise 4 1. If a contingent being exists, then there exists a chain of one or more causes (since all contingent beings, by definition, require a cause). 2. That causal chain either (a) terminates in a necessary being, or (b) it does not; i.e., every member of the chain of causes is contingent. 3. If (a), then a necessary being exists. 4. If (b) i.e., if there is a chain of contingent causes (whether finite or infinite) then the entire set (or, totality ) is itself either (i) necessary or (ii) contingent. 5. (i) is impossible. 6. If (ii), then a necessary being exists. 7. Therefore, if a contingent being exists, then a necessary being exists. (MP-4.5) Proof for MP-4, premise 5 1. If the entire set of contingent causes is itself necessary, then there exists a necessary being composed entirely of contingent parts. 2. However, if all of the members of a set are contingent, then the set itself must also be contingent. 3. Therefore, the entire set of contingent causes cannot be a necessary being. (MP-4.6) Proof for MP-4, premise 6 1. If the entire set of contingent causes is itself contingent, then it requires a cause for its existence (since this is part of what it means to be a contingent being). 2. The cause of the entire set of contingent causes must either be (a) internal to that set, or (b) external to it. 3. (a) is impossible. For, if the thing that causes the entire set is a member of that set, then this is just to say that it causes itself to exist (which is impossible). 4. If (b), then the external cause of the entire set of contingent causes is itself either (i) necessary or (ii) contingent. 5. (ii) is a contradiction, since we ve stipulated that the set is the set of all contingent causes (i.e., there are no contingent beings not included in that set). 6. Therefore, the set of all contingent causes requires a cause for its existence that is both external to that set, and is a necessary being. 4
5 6. An Explanation of the Argument: Consider the chain of events leading up to yourself: You were caused by your parents, and they by their parents, and so on. And your ancestor was caused by some event or other on the Earth, and the Earth was caused by some event or other in our solar system, etc. Now, either this series of causes (a) just STOPS at some point, or (b) it goes on forever and ever. If (a), then as we go back in the series of causes, we must reach some first cause. But, this first cause can t have a prior cause otherwise, we would not have said that the chain stopped there. But, if it has no cause, then according to Avicenna it is, by definition, a necessary being. We might liken this to a chain. Each of the links in the chain represents a contingent being. Imagine that the chain is hanging, suspended in mid-air. Such a chain simply cannot hang from NOTHING. It needs an anchor, or a hook so to speak, to hang from. That first link, or hook, cannot ITSELF be a contingent being or else IT TOO would need something to anchor it. So, it must be a necessary being (i.e., one which requires no cause because it contains an explanation for its own existence within itself). (b) Alternatively, the series of causes goes back and back forever and ever, without beginning. Now, since every member of the series has a cause before it, it follows that every member of the series is a contingent being. But, then, the WHOLE SERIES is itself a contingent being for, Avicenna says that, if all of the parts of a thing are contingent, then the whole made up of those parts must also be contingent. It follows that the entire infinite series must have a cause that is external to it. Obviously, this cause cannot be a contingent being too for then, it must also have a cause, and we are back to square one. The cause, then, must eventually terminate in a necessary being. Like this: In short, the series of contingent causes whether finite or infinite entails the existence of a necessary being. And this necessary being is what we call God. A paraphrased version of Avicenna s argument might look like this: 5
6 1. Everything that exists is either contingent (i.e., requiring an external cause for its existence) or necessary (i.e., not requiring an external cause for its existence, since its essence by itself entails its existence). 2. A set of contingent beings is itself contingent (since, if all of a thing s parts are contingent, then the whole is contingent). 3. Therefore, a necessary being exists (since the set of all existing things cannot ALL be contingent, for in that case the set itself would still require an external cause; i.e., a cause that is not contingent; i.e., a cause that is necessary). And this is God. 7. Objections: Is Avicenna s argument successful? A couple of objections: (a) Against the Conclusion: The Necessary Existent is Not God: Even if Avicenna s argument is successful, all that he has proved is that there is a Necessarily Existent which caused the existence of the contingent universe. But, does this get us the God of Islam? Must such a being be a PERSONAL god, morally perfect, and so on? Reply: Avicenna s argument does not get us God in the traditional Western monotheist sense. However, he DOES argue for the other divine attributes separately. We ll look at these sorts of additions when we study Thomas Aquinas next week. (b) Against P1: Uncaused Contingent Beings: Maybe some contingent beings DON T require a cause. In fact, some experiments in quantum physics seem to suggest that this is actually the case. This is not an incoherent position. The idea of something popping into existence with no cause at all seems coherent enough. I can imagine it happening without imagining anything that is a contradiction. If that s right, then perhaps the universe doesn t NEED a cause, even if it IS a contingent being. Maybe it s just here, with no explanation whatsoever. (Avicenna would say that this is incoherent. Is he right?) (c) Against P2: The Whole is Greater Than the Sum of Its Parts: One of Avicenna s crucial claims is that, If all of a thing s parts are contingent, then the whole is also contingent. But, is this true? [We seem to have reason to doubt this. For, collections often have attributes that their individual members do NOT have. For instance, the collection of all sentient beings is not sentient; the set of all numbers is not itself a number; and so on. So, perhaps the set of all contingent things is NOT contingent?] Some object that, to provide an explanation for every PART of a set of things JUST IS to provide an explanation for the WHOLE set. For instance, if I have a collection of 5 keys, and I gave you a complete explanation of the causes and reasons of EACH individual 6
7 key, it would be rather odd to then ask, But, what is the explanation for the whole five? For, the explanation for the whole JUST IS the 5 explanations for all of the individual parts. But, now consider the infinite series of causes: Every member of that infinite series of beings DOES have an explanation; namely, the prior cause. That is, for every individual in the series, the one before it explains its existence. If every PART of the series has an explanation, then it seems to follow that the whole requires no FURTHER explanation. If that is correct, then perhaps the entire SET of contingent beings can itself be necessary, even though all of its members are contingent. In short, sometimes the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Reply: Avicenna would say that this is absurd. For instance, he writes, If the totality exists necessarily through itself, but each one of its members is something possible, then what exists necessarily subsists by means of things that exist possibly, which is absurd. It seems the present objection confuses two similar, but importantly different claims: The existence of every contingent being (individually) is explained. The existence of all contingent beings (as a totality) is explained. It is NOT the case that an explanation for every member of some group constitutes an explanation for the group itself. Consider the keychain example. Even if I give the explanation for all five of the keys on the chain, it actually DOES make sense to then ask, But, why are there any keys at all? And the answer would be something that is not itself a key: Namely, it would be US we human beings, and our desire to protect certain belongings, are the explanation for why there are any keys at all. Furthermore, notice that we must go OUTSIDE of the set of keys in order to explain why there are any keys at all. So too, we must also go outside of the set of contingent beings in order to explain why there are any contingent beings at all. And this is true EVEN IF the set of contingent beings is infinite, extending forever back into the past, such that no member of the series is left without a cause for its existence. [An excellent video of Leibniz s cosmological argument which is an almost exact rip-off of Avicenna s can be found here.] 7
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
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
The cosmological argument (continued) 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.
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
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
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
Spinoza, Ethics 1 of 85 THE ETHICS by Benedict de Spinoza (Ethica Ordine Geometrico Demonstrata) Translated from the Latin by R. H. M. Elwes PART I: CONCERNING GOD DEFINITIONS (1) By that which is self-caused
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
Aquinas, The Divine Nature So far we have shown THAT God exists, but we don t yet know WHAT God is like. Here, Aquinas demonstrates attributes of God, who is: (1) Simple (i.e., God has no parts) (2) Perfect
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
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
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.
Philosophy of Religion Aquinas' Third Way Modalized Robert E. Maydole Davidson College email@example.com ABSTRACT: The Third Way is the most interesting and insightful of Aquinas' five arguments for
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.
Does God Exist? By: Washington Massaquoi. January 2, 2017 Introduction In almost all societies there are people who deny the existence of God. Disbelievers (atheists) argue that there is no proof or evidence
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,
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
Of Skepticism with Regard to the Senses David Hume General Points about Hume's Project The rationalist method used by Descartes cannot provide justification for any substantial, interesting claims about
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,
PHILOSOPHY 4360/5360 METAPHYSICS Methods that Metaphysicians Use Method 1: The appeal to what one can imagine where imagining some state of affairs involves forming a vivid image of that state of affairs.
36 THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT E. J. Lowe The ontological argument is an a priori argument for God s existence which was first formulated in the eleventh century by St Anselm, was famously defended by René
Concerning God Baruch Spinoza Definitions. I. BY that which is self-caused, I mean that of which the essence involves existence, or that of which the nature is only conceivable as existent. II. A thing
Fr. Copleston vs. Bertrand Russell: The Famous 1948 BBC Radio Debate on the Existence of God Father Frederick C. Copleston (Jesuit Catholic priest) versus Bertrand Russell (agnostic philosopher) Copleston:
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
Sufficient Reason and Infinite Regress: Causal Consistency in Descartes and Spinoza Ryan Steed PHIL 2112 Professor Rebecca Car October 15, 2018 Steed 2 While both Baruch Spinoza and René Descartes espouse
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,
Ibn Sina on Substances and Accidents ERWIN TEGTMEIER, MANNHEIM There was a vivid and influential dialogue of Western philosophy with Ibn Sina in the Middle Ages; but there can be also a fruitful dialogue
1 Copyright Jonathan Bennett [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. Occasional bullets,
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
Kom, 2017, vol. VI (2) : 49 75 UDC: 113 Рази Ф. 28-172.2 Рази Ф. doi: 10.5937/kom1702049H Original scientific paper The Creation of the World in Time According to Fakhr al-razi Shiraz Husain Agha Faculty
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.
Page 1 Baha i Proofs for the Existence of God Ian Kluge to show that belief in God can be rational and logically coherent and is not necessarily a product of uncritical religious dogmatism or ignorance.
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
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
TWO PROBLEMS WITH SPINOZA S ARGUMENT FOR SUBSTANCE MONISM LAURA ANGELINA DELGADO * In Part I of the ETHICS, Spinoza presents his central metaphysical thesis that there is only one substance in the universe.
Causation and Free Will T L Hurst Revised: 17th August 2011 Abstract This paper looks at the main philosophic positions on free will. It suggests that the arguments for causal determinism being compatible
The Ontological Argument Saint Anselm offers a very unique and interesting argument for the existence of God. It is an a priori argument. That is, it is an argument or proof that one might give independent
Anselm s Equivocation By David Johnson In an interview for The Atheism Tapes, from the BBC, philosopher Colin McGinn briefly discussed the ontological argument. He said, It is a brilliant argument, right,
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
1/6 The Resolution of the Antinomies Kant provides us with the resolutions of the antinomies in order, starting with the first and ending with the fourth. The first antinomy, as we recall, concerned the
Descartes' Ontological Argument The essential problem with Anselm's argument is that at the end of it all, the atheist can understand the definition and even have the concept in his or her mind, but still
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
Truthmakers for Negative Existentials 1. Introduction: We have already seen that absences and nothings cause problems for philosophers. Well, they re an especially huge problem for truthmaker theorists.
THE MONADOLOGY GOD AND THE PRINCIPLE OF SUFFICIENT REASON I. The Two Great Laws (#31-37): true and possibly false. A. The Law of Non-Contradiction: ~(p & ~p) No statement is both true and false. 1. The
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
Author meets Critics: Nick Stang s Kant s Modal Metaphysics Kris McDaniel 11-5-17 1.Introduction It s customary to begin with praise for the author s book. And there is much to praise! Nick Stang has written
Quaerens Deum: The Liberty Undergraduate Journal for Philosophy of Religion Volume 1 Issue 1 Volume 1, Issue 1 (Spring 2015) Article 4 April 2015 Infinity and Beyond James M. Derflinger II Liberty University,
+ Immanuel Kant, Analytic and Synthetic Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics Preface and Preamble + Innate vs. a priori n Philosophers today usually distinguish psychological from epistemological questions.
The Principle of Sufficient Reason in Spinoza Martin Lin Rutgers, New Brunswick May 31, 2010 Spinoza is a metaphysical rationalist. He believes that everything has an explanation. No aspect of the world
The Problem of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom Western monotheistic religions (e.g., Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) typically believe that God is a 3-O God. That is, God is omnipotent (all-powerful),
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
Review Tutorial (A Whirlwind Tour of Metaphysics, Epistemology and Philosophy of Religion) Arguably, the main task of philosophy is to seek the truth. We seek genuine knowledge. This is why epistemology
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,
Transition: From A priori To Anselm A PRIORI KNOWLEDGE: Philosophy and Sense Experience We said: Philosophical questions cannot be answered solely by appeal to sense experience. If we can answer a question
KANT S EXPLANATION OF THE NECESSITY OF GEOMETRICAL TRUTHS John Watling Kant was an idealist. His idealism was in some ways, it is true, less extreme than that of Berkeley. He distinguished his own by calling
Secular Thought in the Islamic Golden Age The Golden Age of Islam is generally considered to be from the 9 th to the 12 th c AD or CE with the main centers at Baghdad, Bukhara and Damascus. The House of
The Cosmological Argument Reading Questions The Cosmological Argument: Elementary Version The Cosmological Argument: Intermediate Version The Cosmological Argument: Advanced Version Summary of the Cosmological
Stance Volume 3 April 2010 The Principle of Sufficient Reason and Free Will ABSTRACT: I examine Leibniz s version of the Principle of Sufficient Reason with respect to free will, paying particular attention
Lesson Seventeen The Conditional Syllogism Selections from Aristotle s Prior Analytics 41a21 41b5 It is clear then that the ostensive syllogisms are effected by means of the aforesaid figures; these considerations
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
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
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
Entity Grounding and Truthmaking Ted Sider Ground seminar x grounds y, where x and y are entities of any category. Examples (Schaffer, 2009, p. 375): Plato s Euthyphro dilemma an entity and its singleton
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
Dan Sheffler A Complex Eternity One of the central issues in the philosophy of religion is the relationship between God and time. In the contemporary discussion, the issue is framed between the two opposing
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
Philosophy of Mathematics Kant Owen Griffiths firstname.lastname@example.org St John s College, Cambridge 20/10/15 Immanuel Kant Born in 1724 in Königsberg, Prussia. Enrolled at the University of Königsberg in 1740 and
AS Religious Studies 7061/1 Philosophy of Religion and Ethics Mark scheme 7061 June 2017 Version: 1.0 Final Mark schemes are prepared by the Lead Assessment Writer and considered, together with the relevant
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
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
The Ethics Part I and II Benedictus de Spinoza ************* Introduction During the 17th Century, when this text was written, there was a lively debate between rationalists/empiricists and dualists/monists.
Philosophy 208: The Language Revolution Fall 2011 Hamilton College Russell Marcus Class 2 - The Ontological Argument I. Why the Ontological Argument Soon we will start on the language revolution proper.
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
Logic Appendix: More detailed instruction in deductive logic Standardizing and Diagramming In Reason and the Balance we have taken the approach of using a simple outline to standardize short arguments,
Jewish and Muslim Thinkers in the Islamic World: Three Parallels Peter Adamson (LMU Munich) Our Protagonists: 9 th -10 th Century Iraq Al-Kindī, d. after 870 Saadia Gaon, d. 942 Al-Rāzī d.925 Our Protagonists:
SPINOZA S VERSION OF THE PSR: A Critique of Michael Della Rocca s Interpretation of Spinoza by Erich Schaeffer A thesis submitted to the Department of Philosophy In conformity with the requirements for
1 This translation of Book One Distinctions 1 and 2 of the Ordinatio (aka Opus Oxoniense) of Blessed John Duns Scotus is complete. These two first distinctions take up the whole of volume two of the Vatican
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
Do we have knowledge of the external world? This book discusses the skeptical arguments presented in Descartes' Meditations 1 and 2, as well as how Descartes attempts to refute skepticism by building our
MP_C13.qxd 11/23/06 2:29 AM Page 110 13 Duns Scotus on Divine Illumination [Article IV. Concerning Henry s Conclusion] In the fourth article I argue against the conclusion of [Henry s] view as follows:
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
Descartes Theory of Contingency 1 Chris Gousmett In 1630, Descartes wrote a letter to Mersenne in which he stated a doctrine which was to shock his contemporaries... It was so unorthodox and so contrary
[1968. In Encyclopedia of Christianity. Edwin A. Palmer, ed. Wilmington, Delaware: National Foundation for Christian Education.] GOD, THE EXISTENCE OF That God exists is the basic doctrine of the Bible,
Kant and his Successors G. J. Mattey Winter, 2011 / Philosophy 151 The Sorry State of Metaphysics Kant s Critique of Pure Reason (1781) was an attempt to put metaphysics on a scientific basis. Metaphysics