Closed systems, explanations, and the cosmological argument

  • Kevin DaveyEmail author
  • Mark Lippelmann


Examples involving infinite suspended chains or infinite trains are sometimes used to defend perceived weaknesses in traditional cosmological arguments. In this article, we distinguish two versions of the cosmological argument, suggest that such examples can only be relevant if it is one specific type of cosmological argument that is being considered, and then criticize the use of such examples in this particular type of cosmological argument. Our criticism revolves around a discussion of what it means to call a system closed, and what it means to call an explanation complete. Our analysis makes no suppositions about the nature of the infinite, and is therefore independent of many of the issues around which contemporary discussions of the cosmological argument have tended to revolve.


Cosmological argument Explanation Closed systems Causation First cause Efficient cause Causation in esse 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Brown P. (1966). Infinite causal regression. The Philosophical Review, 75(4): 510–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Craig, W. (2000). The Kalam cosmological argument . Wipf and Stock Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Conway D. (1983). Concerning infinite chains, infinite trains, and borrowing a typewriter. International Journal of Philosophy of Religion, 14, 71–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Joyce G. (1922). Principles of natural theology. New York, Longmans, Green and CoGoogle Scholar
  5. Swinburne R. (2004). The Existence of God. Oxford, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations