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.
|Published (Last):||16 February 2008|
|PDF File Size:||10.19 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||4.15 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
For one, no set of physical laws accounts for a series of cyclical universe-collapses and re-explosions.
Bruce Reichenbach, Explanation and the Cosmological Argument – PhilPapers
Rather, instead of being superfluous, the cosmological argument, if sound, gives us reason to think that the necessary being exists rather than not. Beginning to exist does not entail that one has a beginning point in time.
A beginningless temporal series of events is an actual infinite.
If it exists, it eternally maintains its own existence; it is self-sufficient and self-sustaining. Swinburne’s response is that although theism is perhaps very unlikely, it is far more likely than any supposition that things just happen to be.
Rather, entropy would rise from cycle to cycle, so reichengach even were a series of universe-oscillations possible, they would become progressively longer Davies Swinburne begins his discussion with the existence of a physical universe that contains odd events that cannot be fitted into the established pattern of scientific explanation e. In all possible worlds where a perfectly good God as a necessary being would exist, there would be a justificatory morally sufficient reason for the evils that would exist, or at argyment, given the existence reichenbcah gratuitous evils, for the possibility of the existence of such evils Reichenbach One argument given in defense of this thesis is that the existence of one contingent being may be necessary for the nonexistence of some other contingent being.
Further, the cycle of collapses and expansions would not, as was pictured, be periodic of even duration. In terms of what are the parts themselves explained?
Defenders rekchenbach the cosmological argument suggest two possible kinds of explanation. Russell replies that the move from the contingency of the components of the universe to the contingency of the universe commits the Fallacy of Composition, which mistakenly concludes that since the parts have a certain property, the whole likewise has that property.
WHY TRADITIONAL COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT DO NOT WORK :
Why assume that my necessary being freely causes the cosmos to exist? But this cosmoloical hold for infinite sets—we’ve seen this above where B is the set of squares of natural numbers and A is the set of all natural numbers. Over the centuries philosophers have suggested various instantiations for the contingent being noted in premise 1.
This is consistent with other persons denying it is self-evident, for those who deny it might misunderstand the principle in various brce.
It is true that the past is not actual, but neither is the future. So why should we think that it is necessary that something exist, even if it is contingent? But we need not analogize nothing in terms of empty space, and even if we do, we surely can conceive of removing space.
The universe or cosmos is comprised of all the contingent beings and the events in which they participate that are referred to and described by the propositions in the Big Conjunctive Fact. Thus, it follows from 7.
Explanation and the Cosmological Argument
argumentt Two things should be obvious from this discussion. It has the same plausibility or implausibility as creation ex nihilo. Reprinted in Reichdnbach and Pruss A second reason for Swinburne is that explanation can be reasonably thought to have achieved finality when one gives a personal explanation that appeals to the intentions of a conscious agent. On the quantum level, the connection between cause and effect, if not entirely broken, is to some extent loosened. Subsequent explosions from this collapsing vacuum released the energy in this vacuum, reinvigorating the cosmic inflation and setting the scenario for the subsequent expansion of the universe.
In his Summa Theologica I, q. Hence, total nothingness cannot be actual.
Defenders of the cosmological argument suggest two possible kinds of explanation. Reichenbach – – Faith and Philosophy 23 1: But the idea of the self-existent Creator of everything other than himself is the idea of a reality which is beyond the scope of these explanatory procedures. In the end we will consider an inductive version of the cosmological argument and what it is to be a necessary being.
Elsewhere Swinburne admits to having some doubt about whether men have enough initial consensus about what is coherent and what entails what, are clever enough and have enough imagination to reach agreed proofs which would settle all disputes about whether a statement is coherent or incoherent.