A Response to Almeida and Judisch

Our new cosmological argument for the existence of God weakens the usual Principle of Sufficient Reason premise that every contingent true proposition has an explanation to a weaker principle (WPSR) that every such proposition could have an explanation. Almeida and Judisch have criticized the premis...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inInternational journal for philosophy of religion Vol. 53; no. 2; pp. 65 - 72
Main Authors Pruss, Alexander R., Gale, Richard M.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Heidelbergc Kluwer Academic Publishers 01.04.2003
Springer
Springer Nature B.V
Subjects
Christianity
Contemporary period
Cosmological philosophy
Cosmology
Criticism
Discourse
Existence
Explanation
General subjects
God
History and sciences of religions
Incompatibility
Logical conjunctions
Modal realism
Moral responsibility
Philosophy
Reasoning
Religion
Religious studies
Strong arguments
Sufficient reason
Theism
Weak arguments
Cosmological argument
Philosophy of Religion
Existence of God
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Our new cosmological argument for the existence of God weakens the usual Principle of Sufficient Reason premise that every contingent true proposition has an explanation to a weaker principle (WPSR) that every such proposition could have an explanation. Almeida and Judisch have criticized the premises of our argument for leading to a contradiction. We show that their argument fails, but along the way we are led to clarify the nature of the conclusion of our argument. Moreover, we discuss an argument against us based on a principle of alternate explanation incompatible with our WPSR, and show that his argument fails.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
ISSN:0020-7047
1572-8684
DOI:10.1023/A:1023384016242