An Analysis of Sanjuanist Teaching and its Philosophical Implications for Russell, Bertrand, and Copleston, Frederick C.: , ‘A Debate on the Existence of God,’ in Sanson, Henri: b, Saint Jean de la Croix entre Bossuet et Fenelon. Bertrand Russell and Frederick Copleston: A debate on the existence of God. Sep 23, Histórico debate entre Bertrand Russell y Copleston (subtitulado ).
|Published (Last):||14 November 2006|
|PDF File Size:||11.21 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||20.3 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
You say that the series of events needs no explanation: He contended that Copleston’s argument from contingency is a fallacy, and that there are better explanations for our moral and religious experience:. Whether he was an agnostic or atheist is a question he had addressed before; while technically agnostic with regard to entrs Christian God, as with the Greek Gods, to all intents and purposes he can be considered an atheist.
Bertrand Russell on YouTube. A Debate on the Existence of God: Retrieved from ” https: Twentieth-Century Philosophy of Religion: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
First, as to the metaphysical argument: You can sometimes give a causal explanation of one thing as being the effect of something else, but that is merely referring one thing to another thing russeell there’s no—to my mind—explanation in Father Copleston’s sense of anything at all, nor is there any meaning in calling things “contingent” because there isn’t anything else they could be. Copleston Debate the Existence of God, “.
Something does exist; therefore, there must be something which accounts for this fact, a being which is outside the series of contingent beings. The Russell Argument — F. I think the word “contingent” inevitably suggests the possibility of something that wouldn’t have this what you might call accidental character of just being there, and I don’t think is true except in the purely causal sense.
The infinity of the series of contingent beings, even if drbate, would be irrelevant.
Histórico debate entre Bertrand Russell y Copleston (subtitulado)
First, that the existence of God can be philosophically proved by a metaphysical argument; secondly, that it is only the existence of God that will make sense of man’s moral experience and of religious experience.
Views Read Edit View history. Archived from the original on 22 June Copleston argued that the existence of God can be proved from contingency, and thought that only the existence of God would make sense of human’s moral and religious experience: I say that if there were no necessary being, no being which must exist and cannot not-exist, nothing would exist.
Bertrand Russell Interviews
That is, of beings no one of which can account for its own existence. Russell however found both arguments unconvincing.
He contended that Copleston’s argument from contingency is a fallacy, and that there are better explanations for our moral and religious experience: The debate between Copleston and Russel would typify the arguments presented between theists and atheists in the later half of the 20th century, with Russell’s approach often used by atheists in the late 20th century.
This page was last edited on 2 Octoberat