Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/HTML-CSS/fonts/TeX/fontdata.js
null
US
Info
Ratings
Comments
Mind Map
by
Evilpaws75
, created
more than 1 year ago
General criticisms of the cosmological argument with three specific philosophers
Pinned to
45
0
0
No tags specified
as-level
philosophuy of religion
religious studies
as - level
Created by
Evilpaws75
about 9 years ago
Rate this resource by clicking on the stars below:
(0)
Ratings (0)
0
0
0
0
0
0 comments
There are no comments, be the first and leave one below:
To join the discussion, please
sign up for a new account
or
log in with your existing account
.
Close
3735565
mind_map
2016-03-31T00:31:49Z
Weaknesses of the
cosmological
argument.
Hume.
Depends on the
existence of a
"necessary" being.
Hume rejects this as
he believes there is no
being that can be
inconceivable.
He doesn't believe anything
caused the universe to begin.
It could be self
existing- perhaps it
always existed.
If there is a 1st cause why does
it automatically lead to the God
of classic theism.
Aquinas is guilty of making
an INDUCTIVE LEAP.
(Jumps to the
conclusion that
only God can fill
the first cause.
Human beings automatically
make the connection
between cause and effect.
Bertrand Russell.
Agreed with
Hume.
The world is just
"BRUTE FACT".
Some things (like the
universe) are just there,
and require no
explanation.
It is not possible to
reach an "adequate
explanation".
Tyler and Reid.
"The logic of the
premise does not
demand the necessary
conclusion".
General criticisms.
How can God not have a
cause?
What caused God?
The argument only works for
those who are satisfied that God
himself requires no explanation.
Isn't this an exception to
the argument's "rule"?
Can't the Big Bang Theory
be an explanation in itself?
Why can't there be
an infinite series of
causes?
Double click this node
to edit the text
Click and drag this button
to create a new node
New
0
of
0
Go to link
Track All
Untrack All
3735565
mind_map
2016-03-31T00:31:49Z
You need to log in to complete this action!
Register for Free