Richard Swinburne on Aquinas’s First Way
Aquinas’s first way is sometimes said to be a version of the cosmological argument, but it does not count as one on my definition of a cosmological argument, since it argues not from the existence of physical objects, but from change in them. It claims in effect that, given that there are physical objects, change … Richard Swinburne on Aquinas’s First Way
Swinburne’s Cosmological and Teleological Arguments – Part 3
I am exploring a concern about, or potential objection to, Swinburne’s inductive cosmological and teleological arguments for the existence of God. The objection I have in mind is something like this, for the cosmological argument: Although the one factual premise of Swinburne’s cosmological argument is supposed to be the ONLY contingent factual claim or assumption … Swinburne’s Cosmological and Teleological Arguments – Part 3
Swinburne’s Cosmological and Teleological Arguments – Part 2
Like many other liberals, I’m delighted and mesmerized by Bridgegate and various other Chris Christie scandals from the fine state of New Jersey. I cannot wait for my daily dose of Rachel Maddow dishing the latest dirt on Christie and his idiotic crowd of corrupt New Jersey hooligans. What does this have to do with … Swinburne’s Cosmological and Teleological Arguments – Part 2
Reply to Prof. Feser’s Fourth Question
Ed, Here is your fourth question to me: “4. In response to another reader’s question, about Craig’s version of the First Cause argument, you wrote: “Both theists and atheists begin with an uncaused brute fact. For Craig it is God, and for me it is the universe.” Now, as you know, the expression “brute fact” … Reply to Prof. Feser’s Fourth Question
Reply to Prof. Feser’s Third Question
Ed, your third question and accompanying commentary was this: In response to a reader’s comment, you wrote: I think Bertrand Russell’s beautifully succinct critique of all causal arguments holds good: “If everything requires a cause, then God requires a cause. However, if anything can exist without a cause, it might as well be the universe … Reply to Prof. Feser’s Third Question
Index for Feser-Parsons Exchanges
The purpose of this blog post is simply to provide a convenient index to all of the posts in the planned two series of exchanges between Edward Feser and Keith Parsons. Feser’s contributions will be posted on his blog and Parsons’ contributions will be posted on The Secular Outpost. This post will be updated with links as as they … Index for Feser-Parsons Exchanges
Swinburne’s Cosmological & Teleological Arguments
I’m not going to try to fully explain and evaluate Swinburne’s Cosmological and Teleological arguments for God here. That would be way too much to tackle in one or two blog posts. There are just a couple of doubts or concerns about these arguments that I would like to express and explore. Swinburne’s inductive cosmological … Swinburne’s Cosmological & Teleological Arguments
Reply to Prof. Feser’s Second Question
Ed, I would like to respond to each question first before responding to your responses; otherwise things could get confusing. Here is your second question: 2. Could you tell us where in your writings or in someone else’s that we can find what you take to be the strongest criticisms of the Scholastic arguments for … Reply to Prof. Feser’s Second Question
Answering Prof. Feser
Ed, I hope you don’t mind first names. Informality is conducive to comity, and after the unpleasant brouhaha last week, I think you and I both want a civil exchange rather than one that should be titled “Philosophers Acting Badly.” Here are the questions you asked: 1. You said that I ignore the strongest claims … Answering Prof. Feser