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
    The best explanation required of a sound cosmological arg... — Carmelics
    Home/Natural Theology
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The version of the PSR used by traditional defenders of the cosmological argument is inadequate because it fails to provide the best explanation for the universe.

    The best explanation required of a sound cosmological argument is an absolute explanation, where everything is explained completely and there are no brute or contingent facts.

    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

    Pruss and Swinburne reject absolute explanation for complete explanations, where...The version of the PSR used by traditional defenders of the cosmological argumen...

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Natural Theology
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Traditional defenders of the cosmological argument cannot invoke the r...86%No cosmological arguments can provide examples of sound reasoning.81%The cosmological argument can only establish an ultimate ground or fir...79%The cosmological argument is grounded in causal reasoning.79%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: cosmological-argument
    View source passageHide passage
    However, if we understand “necessary being” in this sense, we can dispose of the cosmological argument as irrelevant; what is needed rather is an argument to establish that God’s existence understood as logically necessary is possible, for if it is possible that it is necessary that God exists, then necessarily God exists (by Axiom S5). However, this need not be the sense in which “necessary being” is understood in the cosmological argument. A more adequate notion of necessary being is that the necessity is metaphysical or factual (Hick 1960). A necessary being is one that if it exists, it ne...

    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