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):||4 March 2008|
|PDF File Size:||17.66 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||15.26 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Histórico debate entre Bertrand Russell y Copleston (subtitulado)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Something does exist; therefore, there must be something which accounts for this fact, a being which is outside the series of contingent beings.
Bertrand Russell Interviews
Bertrand Russell on YouTube. 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 clpleston late 20th century. I don’t admit the connotations of such a term as “contingent” or the possibility of explanation in Father Copleston’s sense.
He contended that Copleston’s argument from contingency russsell a fallacy, and that there are better explanations for our moral and religious experience:. That is, of beings no one of which can account for its own existence.
A Debate on the Existence of God: 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 Coleston Copleston’s sense of anything at all, nor is coplwston any meaning in calling things “contingent” because there isn’t anything else they could be. The infinity of the series of contingent beings, even if proved, would be irrelevant.
First, as to the metaphysical argument: This page was last edited on 2 Octoberat Twentieth-Century Philosophy of Religion: You say that the series of events needs no explanation: Russell however found both arguments unconvincing.
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. If you had admitted this, we could then have discussed whether that being is personal, good, and so on. Archived from the original on 22 June Copleston argued that the existence of God can be proved from contingency, and thought that coplestoh the existence of God would make sense of human’s moral and religious experience: The Cosmological Argument — F.
Whether he was an agnostic or atheist is a question he had addressed before; while technically agnostic with regard to the Christian Copelston, as with the Greek Gods, to all intents and purposes he can be considered an atheist.
I say that if there were no necessary being, no being which must exist and cannot not-exist, nothing would exist. He contended that Copleston’s argument from contingency is a fallacy, and that there are better explanations for our moral and religious experience: Copleston Debate the Existence of God, “.