Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Natural Theology
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Objections to one version of the cosmological argument need not refute other versions

    A critique of the Principle of Sufficient Reason as developed by Rowe or Gale may be irrelevant to the Thomistic or kalām versions

    Natural Theology
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Natural Theology

    Related

    Objections to one version of the cosmological argument need not refute other ver...The three types of cosmological arguments differ in their approach to infinite r...

    Similar

    Hume's and Kant's criticisms are not directed at this modal version of...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Natural Theology
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    76%
    The differences between Xunzi and Mencius may form more subtle contras...75%
    Knowing that the First Cause exists does not constitute adequate knowl...71%
    Oderberg is mistaken when he tries to establish the uniqueness of the ...70%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: cosmological-argument
    View source passageHide passage
    Philosophers employ diverse classifications of the cosmological arguments. Swinburne distinguishes inductive from deductive versions. Craig distinguishes three types of deductive cosmological arguments in terms of their approach to an infinite regress of causes. The first, advocated by Aquinas, is based on the impossibility of an essentially ordered infinite regress. The second, which Craig terms the kalām argument, holds that an infinite temporal regress of causes is impossible because an actua

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective
    A critique of the Principle of Sufficient Reason as devel... — Carmelics