Authors
Travis Dumsday
Concordia University of Edmonton
Abstract
In reply to certain cosmological arguments for theism, critics regularly argue that the causal principle ex nihilo nihil fit may be false. Various theistic counter-replies to this challenge have emerged. One type of strategy is to double down on ex nihilo nihil fit. Another, very different strategy of counter-reply is to grant for the sake of argument that the principle is false, while maintaining that sound cosmological arguments can be formulated even with this concession in place. Notably, one can employ a weaker opening premise formulated in modal terms, proceeding for instance from the proposition that for any contingent object coming into existence it is at least possible that it have a cause. My aim here is to try out a related strategy for weakening the relevant opening premise. Granting that it is possible for a contingent object to come into existence out of nothing without a cause, I proceed from the extremely modest claim that the obtaining of exceptionless longstanding contingent regularities demands an explanation. As such, the contingent regularity that empirically accessible macro-level contingent objects do not pop into existence causelessly demands explanation. And as it turns out, that explanation will have to be in terms of an object or objects possessed of at least some of the traditional divine attributes.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s11153-016-9586-x
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 69,043
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

What is a Law of Nature?D. M. Armstrong - 1983 - Cambridge University Press.
The Metaphysics Within Physics.Tim Maudlin - 2007 - Oxford University Press.
Scientific Essentialism.Brian Ellis - 2001 - Cambridge University Press.
Physicalism.Daniel Stoljar - 2010 - Routledge.
Laws in Nature.Stephen Mumford - 2002 - Routledge.

View all 49 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Yet Another New Cosmological Argument.Christopher Weaver - 2016 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 80 (1):11-31.
A Response to Almeida and Judisch.Alexander Pruss & Richard M. Gale - 2003 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 53 (2):65-72.
Cosmological Argument: A Pragmatic Defense.Evan Sandsmark & Jason L. Megill - 2010 - European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 2 (1):127 - 142.
From States of Affairs to a Necessary Being.Joshua Rasmussen - 2010 - Philosophical Studies 148 (2):183 - 200.
The Cosmological Argument and the Causal Principle.Bruce R. Reichenbach - 1975 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 6 (3):185 - 190.
Van Inwagen on the Cosmological Argument.Anthony Brueckner - 2001 - Philosophical Papers 30 (1):31-40.
Reply to Professor Craig.Graham Oppy - 1995 - Sophia 34 (2):15-29.
Merely Possible Explanation.Ghislain Guigon - 2011 - Religious Studies 47 (3):359-370.
A Cosmological Argument.Kathryn Kreiling Rombs - 2002 - Dissertation, Fordham University

Analytics

Added to PP index
2016-10-03

Total views
62 ( #182,290 of 2,498,570 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
4 ( #171,114 of 2,498,570 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes