Element contents
Cosmological Arguments
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 August 2018
Summary
The Element discusses the structure, content, and evaluation of cosmological arguments. The introductory section investigates features essential to cosmological arguments. Traditionally, cosmological arguments are distinguished by their appeal to change, causation, contingency or objective becoming in the world. But none of these is in fact essential to the formulation of cosmological arguments. Sections 1-3 present a critical discussion of traditional Thomistic, Kalam, and Leibnizian cosmological arguments, noting various advantages and disadvantages of these approaches. Section 4 offers an entirely new approach to the cosmological argument - the approach of theistic modal realism. The proper explananda of cosmological arguments on this approach is not change, causation, contingency or objective becoming in the world. The proper explananda is the totality of metaphysical reality - all actualia and all possibilia. The result is the most compelling and least objectionable version of the cosmological argument.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Online ISBN: 9781108675604Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 23 August 2018
References
Adams, Robert M. (1974) “Theories of Actuality,” Noûs 8: 211–231.10.2307/2214751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, Robert M. (1981) “Actualism and Thisness,” Synthese 49: 3–41.10.1007/BF01063914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, H. G. (1956) The Leibniz–Clarke Correspondence. Oxford: University of Manchester Press.Google Scholar
Al-Ghazali, (1962) Kitab al-Iqtisad fi ’l-Iqtiqad. Ankara: University of Ankara Press.Google Scholar
Almeida, Michael (2010) “O’Connor’s Permissive Multiverse,” Philosophia Christi 12: 297–308.10.5840/pc201012229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almeida, Michael (2011) “Theistic Modal Realism?,” in Kvanvig, Jonathan L. (ed.), Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion. Volume 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1–15.Google Scholar
Almeida, Michael (2017a) “Theistic Modal Realism I: The Challenge of Actualist Realism,” Philosophy Compass 12 (2017): 1–14.10.1111/phc3.12419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almeida, Michael (2017b) “Theistic Modal Realism II: Theoretical Benefits,” Philosophy Compass 12 (2017): 1–17.10.1111/phc3.12418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anscombe, G. E. M. (1974) “‘Whatever Has a Beginning of Existence Must Have a Cause’: Hume’s Argument Exposed,” Analysis 34 (5): 145–151.10.1093/analys/34.5.145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aquinas, St. Thomas (1263a) Summa Contra Gentiles Book I: God, Pegis, Anton C., F.R.S.C. (trans.). South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1979.Google Scholar
Aquinas, St. Thomas (1263b) Summa Contra Gentiles Book II: Creation, Anderson, James F. (trans.). South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1979.Google Scholar
Aquinas, St. Thomas (1271) “On the Eternity of the World,” in McInerny, Ralph (ed.), Thomas Aquinas: Selected Writings. London: Penguin Books, 1998. 710–717.Google Scholar
Aquinas, St. Thomas (1273) Summa Theologica. Volume I. Scotts Valley, CA: Nov Antique Publishers, 2008.Google Scholar
Benacerraf, Paul (1962) “Tasks, Super-Tasks and the Modern Eleatics,” Journal of Philosophy LIX (24): 765–768.10.2307/2023500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, Jonathan (1984) A Study of Spinoza’s Ethics. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.Google Scholar
Bird, Alexander (2005) “The Dispositionalist Conception of Laws,” Foundations of Science 10: 353–370.10.1007/s10699-004-5259-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, Alexander (2007) Nature’s Metaphysics: Laws and Properties. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199227013.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonaventure, ca. 1250, Commentary on the Sentences: Philosophy of God. Works of St. Bonaventure, vol. XVI, Houser, R. E. and Noone, Timothy B. (eds.), St. Bonaventure, NY: Franciscan Institute Press, 2014.Google Scholar
Cantor, Georg (1915) Contributions to the Founding of the Theory of Transfinite Numbers, Jourdain, P. E. B. (trans.). New York, NY: Dover Publishers.Google Scholar
Chalmers, David (2000) “Does Conceivability Entail Possibility?,” in Gendler, Tamar S. and Hawthorne, John (eds.), Conceivability and Possibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 145–200.Google Scholar
Clarke, Samuel (1998) A Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God, Vailati, Ezio (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511583346.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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 (5): 838–856.10.1080/09608788.2013.816934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Contessa, Gabriele (2010) “Modal Truthmakers and Two Varieties of Actualism,” Synthese 174: 341–353.10.1007/s11229-008-9456-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corry, Richard (2011) “Can Dispositionalist Essences Ground the Laws of Nature?,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 89 (2): 263–275.10.1080/00048401003660325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coughlan, M. J. (1987) “Must God Create Only the Best Possible World?,” Sophia 26: 15–19.10.1007/BF02781168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, William Lane (1979) The Kalām Cosmological Argument. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers.10.1007/978-1-349-04154-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, William Lane (1984) “Professor Mackie and the Kalām Cosmological Argument,” Religious Studies 20 (3): 367–375.10.1017/S0034412500016243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, William Lane (1998) “The Kalām Cosmological Argument,” in Pojman, Louis (ed.), Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Publishing.24–41.Google Scholar
Craig, William Lane (2001) The Cosmological Argument: From Plato to Leibniz, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers.Google Scholar
Craig, William Lane and Moreland, J. P. (2015) “The Kalam Cosmological Argument,” in Rea, Michael and Pojman, Louis (eds.), Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology. Stamford, CA: Cengage Publishers.Google Scholar
Craig, William Lane and Sinclair, James D. (2012) “The Kalam Cosmological Argument,” in Craig, William Lane and Moreland, J. P. (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Oxford: Blackwell. 101–201.Google Scholar
Craig, William Lane and Smith, Quentin (1993) Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Dasgupta, Shamik (2016) “Metaphysical Rationalism,” Noûs 50 (2): 379–418.10.1111/nous.12082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deasy, Daniel (2015) “The Moving Spotlight Theory,” Philosophical Studies 172 (8). 2073–2089.10.1007/s11098-014-0398-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Divers, John (1999) “A Genuine Realist Theory of Advanced Modalizing,” Mind 108: 217–239.10.1093/mind/108.430.217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Divers, John (2007) “The Modal Metaphysics of Alvin Plantinga,” in Baker, Deane-Peter (ed.), Alvin Plantinga. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 71–92.10.1017/CBO9780511611247.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorr, Cian. “Diamonds Are Forever” (unpublished manuscript).Google Scholar
Draper, Paul (2004) “Cosmic Fine-Tuning and Terrestrial Suffering: Parallel Problems for Naturalism and Theism,” American Philosophical Quarterly 41: 311–321.Google Scholar
Edwards, Jonathan (2003) “On the Freedom of the Will,” in Alexander, Patrick (ed.), The Works of Jonathan Edwards. Volume 1. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers.Google Scholar
Edwards, Paul (1967) “The Cosmological Argument,” in Burrill, Donald R. (ed.), The Cosmological Arguments: A Spectrum of Opinion. New York, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books. 101–124.Google Scholar
Eells, Ellery (1988) “Quentin Smith on Infinity and the Past,” Philosophy of Science 55 (3): 453–455.10.1086/289451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feit, Neil (1998) “More on Brute Facts,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 76 (4): 625–630.10.1080/00048409812348721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forrest, Peter (1981) “The Problem of Evil: Two Neglected Defenses,” Sophia 20: 49–54.10.1007/BF02782747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forrest, Peter (1996) God without the Supernatural. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Francken, P. and Geirsson, H. (1999) “Regresses, Sufficient Reasons, and Cosmological Arguments,” Journal of Philosophical Research 24: 285–304.10.5840/jpr_1999_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, Michael V. (2013) Leibniz, God, and Necessity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, Tyron (ed.) (2013) The Puzzle of Existence: Why Is There Something Rather than Nothing? New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Grünbaum, Adolf (1991) “Creation as a Pseudo-Explanation in Current Physical Cosmology,” Erkenntnis 35 (1–3): 233–254.10.1007/BF00388287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawthorne, John (2000) “Before-Effect and Zeno Causality,” Noûs 34 (4): 622–633.10.1111/0029-4624.00281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawthorne, John (2006) “Chance and Counterfactuals,” in his Metaphysical Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 225–264.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199291236.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilbert, David (1964) “On the Infinite,” in Benacerraf, P. and Putnam, H. (eds.), Philosophy of Mathematics, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Publishers. 183–201.Google Scholar
Hoefer, Carl (2016) “Causal Determinism,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2016 Edition), Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/determinism-causal/.Google Scholar
Hudson, Hud (1997) “Brute Facts,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 75 (1): 77–82.10.1080/00048409712347681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, G. E. and Cresswell, M. J. (1998) A New Introduction to Modal Logic. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hume, David (1779) Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Edinburgh: Blackwood and Sons, 1907.Google Scholar
Hume, David (1738) Treatise of Human Nature, Selby-Bigge, L. A. (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981.Google Scholar
Hume, David (1748) An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. London. Reprinted Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, 1993.Google Scholar
Jager, Thomas (1982), “An Actualist Semantics for Quantified Modal Logic,” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 23 (3): 335–349.10.1305/ndjfl/1093870093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, David (1979) “On the Logic of Demonstratives,” Journal of Philosophical Logic 8 (1): 81–98.10.1007/BF00258420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koons, Robert (1997) “A New Look at the Cosmological Argument,” American Philosophical Quarterly 34 (2): 193–211.Google Scholar
Koons, Robert (2008) “Epistemological Foundations for the Cosmological Argument,” in Kvanvig, Jonathan L. (ed.), Oxford Studies in the Philosophy of Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.105–133.10.1093/oso/9780199542659.003.0005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koons, Robert (2014) “A New Kalam Argument: Revenge of the Grim Reaper,” Noûs 48 (2): 256–267.10.1111/j.1468-0068.2012.00858.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraay, Klaas (2010) “Theism, Possible Worlds, and the Multiverse,” Philosophical Studies 47 (3): 355–368.10.1007/s11098-008-9289-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraay, Klaas (2011) “Theism and Modal Collapse,” American Philosophical Quarterly 48: 361–72Google Scholar
Kretzmann, Norman (2001a) The Metaphysics of Creation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/0199246548.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kretzmann, Norman (2001b) The Metaphysics of Theism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/019924653X.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasonen-Aarnio, Maria and Hawthorne, John (2010) “Knowledge and Objective Chance,” in Greenough, Patrick and Pritchard, Duncan (eds.), Williamson on Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 92–108.Google Scholar
Leibniz, Gottfried (1697) On the Ultimate Origination of Things, in Ariew, R. and Garber, D. (eds.), G. W. Leibniz: Philosophical Essays. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, 1989a. 149–154.Google Scholar
Leibniz, Gottfried (1714) Monadology, in Parkinson, G. H. R. (ed.), Leibniz: Philosophical Writings. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1973.Google Scholar
Leibniz, Gottfried (1714) Principles of Nature and Grace, Based on Reason, in Ariew, R. and Garber, D. (eds.), G. W. Leibniz: Philosophical Essays. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, 1989b. 206–212.Google Scholar
Levey, Samuel (2016) “The Paradox of Sufficient Reason,” Philosophical Review 125 (3): 397–430.10.1215/00318108-3516956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David (1976) “The Paradoxes of Time Travel,” American Philosophical Quarterly 3 (2)145–152.Google Scholar
Lewis, David (1979) “Scorekeeping in a Language Game,” Journal of Philosophical Logic 8 (3): 339–359.10.1007/BF00258436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David (1983b) “Postscripts to Anselm and Actuality,” in his Philosophical Papers I. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, David (2015) “A Reply to Dana Scott: ‘Is There Life on Possible Worlds?’” in Loewer, Barry and Schaffer, Jonathan (eds.), A Companion to David Lewis. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 18–22.10.1002/9781118398593.ch3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linsky, Bernard and Zalta, Edward (1994) “In Defense of the Simplest Quantified Modal Logic,” Tomberlin, James (ed.), Philosophical Perspectives 8: Logic and Language. Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview Press. 431–448.Google Scholar
Look, Brandon C. (2017) “Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/leibniz/.Google Scholar
Mackie, John L. (1955) “Evil and Omnipotence,” Mind 64: 200–212.10.1093/mind/LXIV.254.200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McHarry, D. (1978) “A Theodicy,” Analysis, 38: 132–134.10.1093/analys/38.3.132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McTaggart, J. M. E. (1927) The Nature of Existence, Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Menzel, Christopher (1990) “Actualism, Ontological Commitment, and Possible Worlds Semantics,” Synthese 85: 355–389.10.1007/BF00484834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menzel, Christopher (1991) “The True Modal Logic,” Journal of Philosophical Logic 20: 331–374.10.1007/BF00249434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, Thomas (1987) “Properties, Modalities, and God,” in his Anselmian Explorations. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Mumford, Stephen (2003) Dispositions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199259823.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munitz, M. K. (1951) “One Universe or Many?” Journal of the History of Ideas 12: 231–255.10.2307/2707516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Connor, Timothy (2012) Theism and Ultimate Explanation: The Necessary Shape of Contingency. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Oppy, Graham (2006) Arguing about Gods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511498978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppy, Graham (2014) Describing Gods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781316091807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newlands, Samuel (2013) “Spinoza’s Modal Metaphysics,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/spinoza-modal/.Google Scholar
Philoponus, John (1987) Against Aristotle, on the Eternity of the World. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Philoponus, John and Simplicius, (1987) Place, Void, and Eternity. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Plantinga, Alvin (1976) “Actualism and Possible Worlds,” Theoria 42: 139–160.10.1111/j.1755-2567.1976.tb00681.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prior, Arthur (1956) “Modality and Quantification in S5,” Journal of Symbolic Logic 21: 60–62.10.2307/2268488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prior, Arthur (1977) Worlds, Times, and Selves. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
Pruss, Alexander (2006) The Principle of Sufficient Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511498992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pruss, Alexander (2009a) “From Grim Reaper to the Kalaam,” http://alexanderpruss.blogspot.com/2009/10/from-grim-reaper-paradox-to-kalaam.html.Google Scholar
Pruss, Alexander (2009b) “Leibnizian Cosmological Arguments,” in Craig, W. L and Moreland, J. P. (eds.), Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Oxford: Blackwell. 24–100.10.1002/9781444308334.ch2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasmussen, Josh (2012) “Presentists May Say Goodbye to A-Properties,” Analysis 72: 270–276.10.1093/analys/ans038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichenbach, Bruce, (2017) “Cosmological Argument,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/cosmological-argument.Google Scholar
Rescher, Nicholas (2013) On Leibniz. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.10.2307/j.ctt7zw8g2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowe, William L. (1988) The Cosmological Argument. Bronx, NY: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
Rowe, William L. (2007) Philosophy of Religion: An Introduction, 4th edn. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Rowe, William L. (2015) “An Examination of the Cosmological Argument,” in Rea, Michael and Pojman, Louis (eds.), Philosophy of Religion : An Anthology, 7th edn. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning. 167–176.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand (1905) “On Denoting,” Mind 14: 479–493.10.1093/mind/XIV.4.479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, Nathan (1987) “Existence,” in Tomberlin, J. (ed.), Philosophical Perspectives, vol. 1. Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview Press. 49–108.Google Scholar
Schnieder, Benjamin and Steinberg, Alex (2016) “Without Reason?” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 97: 523–541.10.1111/papq.12065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sider, Ted (1997) “Four Dimensionalism,” Philosophical Review 106: 197–231.10.2307/2998357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sider, Ted (2001) Four Dimensionalism: An Ontology of Persistence and Time. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/019924443X.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skow, Bradford (2015) Objective Becoming. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198713272.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skyrms, Bryan (1976) “Possible Worlds, Physics and Metaphysics,” Philosophical Studies 30 (5): 323–332.10.1007/BF00357930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Quentin (1995) “A Defense of a Principle of Sufficient Reason,” Metaphilosophy 26 (½): 97–106.10.1111/j.1467-9973.1995.tb00558.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Quentin (2008) “A Cosmological Argument for a Self-Caused Universe” https://infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/self-caused.html.Google Scholar
Sorensen, Roy (2003) A Brief History of the Paradox. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195159035.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert (1976) “Possible Worlds,” Noûs 10 (1): 65–75.10.2307/2214477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinburne, Richard (1993) The Coherence of Theism, revised edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/0198240708.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinburne, Richard (2004) The Existence of God, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199271672.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, J. F. (1954) “Tasks and Super-Tasks,” Analysis 15 (1): 1–13.10.1093/analys/15.1.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, Donald (2003) “The Many-Universes Solution to the Problem of Evil,” in Gale, Richard and Pruss, Alexander (eds.), The Existence of God. United Kingdom: Ashgate Publishers.Google Scholar
Turner, Donald (2014) “Revisiting the Many-Universes Solution to the Problem of Evil,” in Kraay, Klaas (ed.), God and the Multiverse. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vallicella, William F. (1997) “On an Insufficient Argument against Sufficient Reason,” Ratio 10 (1): 76–81.10.1111/1467-9329.00028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Inwagen, Peter (1986), “Two Concepts of Possible Worlds,” Midwest Studies in Philosophy, XI, French, P., Uehling, T., and Wettstein, H. (eds.) Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. 185–213.Google Scholar
Williams, Robert (2008) “Chances, Counterfactuals, and Similarity,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 77: 385–420.10.1111/j.1933-1592.2008.00196.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, Timothy (2002) “Necessary Existents,” in O’Hear, A. (ed.), Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 269–287.Google Scholar
Williamson, Timothy (2013) Modal Logic as Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199552078.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfson, H. A. (1966) “Patristic Arguments against the Eternity of the World,” Harvard Theological Review 59: 354–367.10.1017/S0017816000009846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfson, H. A. (1976) The Philosophy of the Kalam. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this element is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.
- 20
- Cited by