Advertisement

Formulating a New Cosmological Argument

  • Andrew Ter Ern LokeEmail author
Chapter
  • 448 Downloads
Part of the Palgrave Frontiers in Philosophy of Religion book series (PFPR)

Abstract

I explain the distinctions between Leibnizian, Thomist and Kalam Cosmological Arguments, clarify the key terms (time, change, event and cause), and develop a new Cosmological Argument which synthesise the familiar Thomist story about infinite sequences of train cars with the Kalam. This point of originality is combined with other novelties, such as a new ‘infinite additions of zero’ argument and the replacement of the traditional Leibnizian/Thomistic focus on the necessity/pure actuality of the First Cause with a focus on the beginninglessness of the First Cause.

Keywords

Kalam Cosmological Argument Train Car Beginningless Causal Series Actual Infinite 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Audi, Robert (ed.). 1999. The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University.Google Scholar
  2. Beebee, Helen, Christopher Hitchcock, and Peter Menzies (eds.). 2009. The Oxford Handbook of Causation. Oxford: Oxford University.Google Scholar
  3. Casati, Roberto and Varzi, Achille. 2010. Events, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2010 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2010/entries/events/.
  4. Cohoe, Caleb. 2013. There must be a First: Why Thomas Aquinas Rejects Infinite, Essentially Ordered, Causal Series. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 21: 838–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Craig, William Lane. 1980. The Cosmological Argument from Plato to Leibniz. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Craig, William Lane. 1998. Divine Timelessness and Personhood. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 43: 109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Craig, William Lane. 2014. The Reality of Time. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-reality-of-time#ixzz3Auf9W45t. Accessed 20 Jan 2017.
  8. Craig, William Lane, and James Sinclair. 2009. The Kalam Cosmological Argument. In The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, ed. William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davies, Brian, and Eleonore Stump (eds.). 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Aquinas. Oxford: Oxford University.Google Scholar
  10. Dorato, Mauro and Michael Esfeld (forthcoming). The Metaphysics of Laws: Dispositionalism vs. Primitivism. In Metaphysics in Contemporary Physics, eds. Tomasz Bigaj, and Christian Wüthrich. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  11. Dowden, Bradley. 2013. Time, Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. http://www.iep.utm.edu/time/. Accessed 5 July 2013.
  12. Feser, Edward. 2009. Aquinas. Oxford: Oneworld Publications.Google Scholar
  13. Frisch, Matthias. 2009. The most Sacred Tenet? Causal Reasoning in Physics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60: 459–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frisch, Mathias. 2012. No Place for Causes? Causal Skepticism in Physics. European Journal for Philosophy of Science. 2: 313–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frisch, Mathias. 2014. Causal Reasoning in Physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Garrett, Don. 2009. Hume. In The Oxford Handbook of Causation, ed. Helen Beebee, Christopher Hitchcock, and Peter Menzies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hawthorne, J. 2000. Before-effect and Zeno causality. Noûs 34: 622–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hitchcock, Christopher. 2012. Probabilistic Causation. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012 Edition). ed. Edward N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/causation-probabilistic/.
  19. Kerr, Gaven. 2012. Essentially Ordered Series Reconsidered. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 86: 543–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Loke, Andrew. 2014. A Kryptic Model of the Incarnation. London: Routledge (previously published by Ashgate).Google Scholar
  21. Loke, Andrew. 2017. The Origins of Divine Christology. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Lombard, Lawrence. 1986. Events: A Metaphysical Study, 1986. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Mackie, J.L. 1982. The Miracle of Theism. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  24. Mackie, Penelope. 2005. Causality. In The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, 2nd ed, ed. Hondrich Ted. New York: Oxford University. http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t116.e356.Google Scholar
  25. Marenbon, John. 2009. The Medievals. In The Oxford Handbook of Causation, ed. Helen Beebee, Christopher Hitchcock, and Peter Menzies. Oxford: Oxford University.Google Scholar
  26. Maudlin, Tim. 2007. The Metaphysics Within Physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Meyer, Ulrich. 2012. Explaining causal loops. Analysis 72: 259–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moreland, J.P., and William Lane Craig. 2003. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.Google Scholar
  29. Mumford, Stephen. 2009. Causal Powers and Capacities. In The Oxford Handbook of Causation, ed. Helen Beebee, Christopher Hitchcock, and Peter Menzies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Naeye, Robert. 2008. Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/science/testing_fundamental_physics_prt.htm. Accessed 20 Jan 2017.
  31. Oaklander, Nathan. 2004. The Ontology of Time. New York: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  32. Oderberg, David. 2010. Whatever is Changing is Being Changed by Something Else: A Reappraisal of Premise One of the First Way. In Mind, Method and Morality: Essays in Honour of Anthony Kenny, ed. J. Cottingham, and P. Hacker. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Padgett, Alan. 1992. God, Eternity, and the Nature of Time. New York: St. Martin’s.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pettersson, Thomas Sven, and P. Lefèvre. 1995. The Large Hadron Collider. CERN Document Server. http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/291782.
  35. Phillips, R.P. 1935. Modern Thomistic Philosophy, vol. II. London: Burns, Oates, and Washbourne.Google Scholar
  36. Potter, Karl (ed.). 1977. Indian Metaphysics and Epistemology: The Tradition of Nyāya-Vaiśeşika up to Gangeśa. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Psillos, Stathis. 2009. Regularity Theories of Causation. In The Oxford Handbook of Causation, ed. Helen Beebee, Christopher Hitchcock, and Peter Menzies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Pruss, Alexander. 2009. The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument. In The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, ed. William Lane Craig, and J.P. Moreland. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Reichenbach, Bruce. 2016. Cosmological Argument. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/cosmological-argument/.
  40. Russell, Bertrand. 1918. On the Notion of Cause. Longmans Green and Co: In Mysticism and Logic and other Essays. New York.Google Scholar
  41. Shackel, Nicholas. 2005. The Form of the Benardete Dichotomy. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 56: 397–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Smith, Quentin. 2007. Kalam cosmological arguments for atheism. In The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, ed. Michael Martin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Smith, Sheldon. 2013. Causation in Classical Mechanics. In The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Physics, ed. R. Batterman. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Strawson, Galen. 1989. The Secret Connexion. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  45. Tooley, Michael. 1987. Causation: A Realist Approach. Oxford: Oxford University.Google Scholar
  46. Van Inwagen, Peter. 2009. God and Other Uncreated Things. In Metaphysics and God, ed. Kevin Timpe. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Von Wright, G.H. 1963. Norm and Action: A Logical Inquiry. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  48. Williams, Donald. 2016. Pro: A Defense of C. S. Lewis’s Trilemma. In C. S. Lewis’s Christian Apologetics: Pro and Con, ed. Gregory Bassham. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Hong KongHong KongHong Kong

Personalised recommendations