Karpov Kirill

Metaphysics of the cosmological argument and some possible tasks of theistic proofs

Abstract

There is a prevailing view in the analytic philosophical theology that theistic proofs should be formulated without reference to whatsoever metaphysics, but only relying on the achievements of modern science, especially physics, highlighting its logical structure. The Cosmological argument deserved special attention among analytic theologians due to its seeming independence from medieval metaphysics and great variability: there were offered at least three versions of it, which embodies these principles. They are a new version of Aquinas’ Third Way, the so-called generic cosmological argument, both versions are analyzed as were submitted by Stephen Davis, and Kalam cosmological argument developed by William Craig. In this paper, I show that the cosmological argument should not be considered without those metaphysical ideas, within which it was proposed, as it leads to the semantic gaps that can not be resolved only by logical analysis. Analysis of Aquinas’ tertia via and modern versions of the cosmological argument shows that they all contain serious logical and metaphysical errors, which do not allow to accept this arguments. On the basis of this conclusion, I try to formulate the tasks that can be solved by theistic proofs: first of all, it is a rationalization of faith.

Keywords

Theistic proofs, cosmological argument, metaphysics, third way, kalam cosmological argument, Thomas Aquinas, Stephen Davis, William Craig, tasks of theistic proofs

References

1. Brown P., “St. Thomas’ doctrine of necessary being”, in: The Philosophical Review, 73, 1964, 76–90.
2. Craig W. L., The Kalām Cosmological Argument, London, 1979.
3. David Dinanskij , “[Duh, materij a, Bog]: (Fragmenty iz «Quaternuli»)”, in: Sokolov V. V., ed., Antologija mirovoj filosofii: V 4 t. M., 1/ 2, 1969, 811–812.
4. Davis S. T., God, Reason and Theistic Proofs, Edinburgh, 1997.
5. Engels F., “Herrn Eugen Dü hrings Umwä lzung der Wissenschaft (Anti-Dühring)”, in: Marx-Engels Werke, Berlin, 20, 1975.
6. Karpova K. V., trans., Shohin V. K., ed., Djevis S. T. Bog, razum i teisticheskie dokazatel’stva, Moscow, 2016.
7. Krejg U., “Kalamicheskij kosmologicheskij argument”, in: Shohin V. K., ed., Filosofija religii: Al’manah 2008–2009, Moscow, 2010, 110–135.
8. Plantinga A., “Ontologicheskoe dokazatel’stvo”, in: Sennet Dzh. F., Karpova K. V., Shohin V. K., eds., Analiticheskij teist: antologija Alvina Plantingi, Moscow, 2014, 113–143.
9. Plantinga A., God, Freedom and Evil, Grand Rapids, 1974.

Information about the author

Karpov Kirill

Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Place of work: Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences; Goncharnaya Str. 12/1, Moscow 109240, Russian Federation;
Post: Senior Research Fellow;
ORCID: 0000-0002-0223-7410;
Email: kirill.karpov@gmail.com.

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

Acknowledgments

The article is written within the framework of the project № 15-03-00211 "Metaphysics in the intercultural space: history and modernity" supported by RFBR Foundation