Moral Psychology and Ethical Theory. Ed. John Cooper, Copleston and Bertrand Russell. BBC Third Programme Debate: The Existence of God. In A Modern Introduction to D’Entreves, Alexander P. Natural Law. 2nd. rev. 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.
|Genre:||Health and Food|
|Published (Last):||8 October 2011|
|PDF File Size:||10.39 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||19.76 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
First, as to the metaphysical argument: 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: You say that the series of events needs no explanation: Archived from the original on 22 June He contended that Copleston’s argument from contingency is a fallacy, and that there are better explanations for our moral and religious experience: Bertrand Russell on YouTube.
The Cosmological Argument — F. He contended that Copleston’s argument from contingency is a fallacy, and that there are better explanations for our moral and religious experience:. If you had admitted this, we could then have discussed whether that being is personal, good, and so on. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Twentieth-Century Philosophy of Religion: Rusesll 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. Views Read Edit View history.
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 and there’s no—to my mind—explanation in Father Copleston’s sense of anything at all, nor is there any eebate in calling things “contingent” because there isn’t anything else they could be.
Copleston Debate the Existence of God, “.
Histórico debate entre Bertrand Russell y Copleston (subtitulado)
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.
Retrieved from ” https: The infinity of the series of contingent beings, even if proved, would be irrelevant. First, that the existence of God can be philosophically proved by a metaphysical argument; secondly, that it is only the berfrand of God that will make sense of man’s moral experience and of religious experience.
I say that if there were no necessary being, no being which must exist and cannot not-exist, nothing would exist.
Copleston–Russell debate – Wikipedia
I don’t admit the connotations of such a term as “contingent” or the possibility of explanation in Father Copleston’s sense. This page was last edited on 2 Octoberat coplestln Something does exist; therefore, there must be something which accounts for this fact, a being which is outside the series of contingent beings.
Russell however found both arguments unconvincing. A Debate on the Existence of God: That is, of beings no one of which can account vebate its own existence.