1 / 11

LECTURE 18

LECTURE 18. THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT : ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO PROVE THAT SOME THING NECESSSARILY EXISTS. THERE ARE CONTINGENTLY EXISTING THINGS. EVERYTHING THAT WE DIRECTLY PERCEIVE IN THE WORLD SEEMS TO BE CONTINGENTLY – NOT NECESSARILY – EXISTENT.

feo
Télécharger la présentation

LECTURE 18

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. LECTURE 18 THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT: ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO PROVE THAT SOME THING NECESSSARILY EXISTS

  2. THERE ARE CONTINGENTLY EXISTING THINGS EVERYTHING THAT WE DIRECTLY PERCEIVE IN THE WORLD SEEMS TO BE CONTINGENTLY – NOT NECESSARILY – EXISTENT. BUT WHAT EXPLAINS THE EXISTENCE OF CONTINGENT THINGS?

  3. THE SPHERE AND THE PRINCIPLE OF SUFFICIENT REASON SUPPOSE YOU WERE HIKING IN THE WILDERNESS WITH A FRIEND AND CAME UPON AN TRANSLUCENT SPHERE, PERFECTLY SMOOTH, AND ABOUT 10 FEET IN DIAMETER. YOU ASK, “HOW DID THAT SPHERE COME TO BE HERE?” YOUR FRIEND SAYS “THERE’S NO EXPLANATION”

  4. THE PRINCIPLE OF SUFFICIENT REASON (STRONG VERSION) (PSR) FOR EVERYTHING THAT IS TRUE OR IS SO, THERE IS A SUFFICIENT REASON FOR ITS BEING TRUE OR BEING SO. WE CONSTANTLY APPEAL TO THIS PRINCIPLE IN EVERYDAY LIFE AND IN SCIENCE. YOU WOULD NOT ACCEPT YOUR FRIEND’S ANSWER. WHAT IF THE ANSWER WAS “THAT SPHERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN HERE”?

  5. EVEN IF IT WEREN’T A SPHERE, BUT MERELY A BOULDER – THE ANSWER “THERE IS NO EXPLANATION” WOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE LET US TENTATIVELY ACCEPT (PSR) AND SEE WHAT FOLLOWS. WE ASK: “WHY ARE THERE ANY CONTINGENT BEINGS AT ALL?”

  6. THERE MUST BE AN ANSWER BY (PSR) THE ANSWER CANNOT PRESUPPOSE THAT THERE ARE CONTINGENT BEINGS OR ELSE IT WOULD NOT EXPLAIN THE EXISTENCE OF CONTINGENT BEINGS. THE ONLY KIND OF EXPLANATION THAT THERE COULD BE WOULD HAVE TO BE IN TERMS OF A NECESSARILY EXISTING THING. THEREFORE, THERE IS A NECESSARILY EXISTING THING.

  7. VAN INWAGEN’S SIMPLIFIED VERSION IF WE ASSUME THAT THE (PSR) IS A NECESSARY TRUTH, THEN THERE IS A PROOF THAT IF THERE COULD BE BEINGS (OF ANY KIND), THEN THERE IS A NECESSARILY EXISTING BEING.

  8. SUPPOSE THAT THERE IS A POSSIBLE WORLD IN WHICH THERE ARE BEINGS. EITHERTHERE IS A NECESSARY BEING THEREIN – AND IT (NECESSARILY) EXISTS IN EVERY POSSIBLE WORLD, HENCE IN THE ACTUAL WORLD OR

  9. THE OTHER POSSIBILITY • ORTHERE IS A CONTINGENT BEING IN THAT POSSIBLE WORLD. THE (PSR) MUST BE TRUE IN THAT WORLD (SINCE IT IS NECESSARILY TRUE), HENCE THE EXPLANATION FOR THERE BEING CONTINGENT BEINGS THEREIN WILL BE A NECESSARY BEING (AS ALREADY EXPLAINED) AND IT THEREFORE EXISTS IN THE ACTUAL WORLD.

  10. IS (PSR) TRUE? SCIENTIFIC DIFFICULTY: QUANTUM MECHANICS, AN IMPRESSIVELY SUCCESSFUL THEORY, IMPLIES (ON ONE OF ITS INTERPRETATIONS) THAT THERE ARE EVENTS FOR WHICH THERE IS NO SUFFICIENT REASON. SOME THINGS JUST HAVE A CERTAIN PROBABILITYOF HAPPENING AND ATTEMPTS TO ACCOMMODATE THIS FEATURE INTO A “BETTER” THEORY HAVE NOT SUCCEEDED.

  11. SOME RESPONSES IT IS NOT OUTRAGEOUS TO CLAIM THAT QUANTUM MECHANICS IS NOT REALLY INTELLIGIBLE AND IT IS THEREFORE A VERY TENUOUS PROCEDURE TO USE ONE OF ITS INTERPRETATIONS TO TRY TO DEFEAT (PSR). RICHARD FEYNMAN: “I THINK IT IS SAFE TO SAY THAT NO ONE UNDERSTANDS QUANTUM MECHANICS.”

More Related