Essay: Cosmological Argument - Philosophical Investigations.
The Russell-Copleston Debate. Before there was William Lane Craig, there was.The Russell-Copleston debate. Who do you think won this one? A redated post Posted by Victor Reppert at 2:41 PM. Labels: Bertrand Russell, Copleston. 50 comments: unkleE said. I read that debate years ago, and I always thought Russell was very weak on his response to the moral argument. His response that.
This version of the cosmological argument, defended by Frederick Copleston in a radio debate with Bertrand Russell, emphasises the need to explain what exists. 1. Things in the universe exist contingently, they might not have existed or they might stop existing. 2. Something that exists contingently has (and needs) an explanation of why it exists; after all, it is not inevitable. 3. This.
Firstly, Copleston started off the radio debate by reforming Aquinas’ third way about contingency and Leibniz sufficient cause. He claimed that God created the universe and that God was his own sufficient cause so caused himself and was a necessary being that could not not exist.In response, Russell said that there can never be a sufficient cause of something as this may depend on people’s.
The Coplestone and Russell Debate. In addition, Aquinas’ concept of a necessary being fits in with Copleston’s interpretation of the first two ways as concerning an ontologically necessary being. Fallacy of Composition. Objection: Hume’s Fallacy of Composition. Cf. Russell’s Mother Argument. Fallacy of Composition (Hume): it is not necessary for the whole universe to have a cause.
On his Dangerous Idea blog, Vic Reppert asks for comments on who won the famous debate between Bertrand Russell and Frederick Copleston, S.J. on the existence of God, broadcast by the B.B.C. in 1948.I recently commented on this debate in the chapter “Bertrand Russell” in Icons of Unbelief, edited by S.T. Joshi and recently published (2008) by Greenwood Press.
However, in the 1948 BBC Radio Debate between Bertrand Russell and Frederick Copleston, Russell chose to assume the position of the agnostic, though it seems to have been because he admitted to not being able to prove the non-existence of God:. Copleston: Well, my position is the affirmative position that such a being actually exists, and that His existence can be proved philosophically.
I don't get what Russell is trying to say when he refers to Kant's 'existence is not a predicate' argument. How does it relate to anything Copleston is say. Get Covid-19 updates. Ask a question. Log in. Sign up. What would you like to say? Please enter a title. Please enter a message. Your discussion will live here. (Start typing, we will pick a forum for you) Please select a forum. Change.