Cosmological Argument: A Pragmatic Defense
We formulate a sort of generic Cosmological argument, i.e., a Cosmological argument that shares premises (e.g., contingent, concretely existing entities have a cause) with numerous versions of the argument. We then defend each of the premises by offering pragmatic arguments for them. We show tha...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Contributors: | |
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
University of Innsbruck in cooperation with the John Hick Centre for Philosophy of Religion at the University of Birmingham
[2010]
|
| In: |
European journal for philosophy of religion
Year: 2010, Volume: 2, Issue: 1, Pages: 127-142 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (doi) Volltext (teilw. kostenfrei) |
| Parallel Edition: | Non-electronic
|
MARC
| LEADER | 00000naa a22000002 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 1567182321 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20180115170137.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 180115s2010 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.24204/ejpr.v2i1.354 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)1567182321 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-576)497182327 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)BSZ497182327 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rda | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 084 | |a 0 |a 1 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Sandsmark, Evan |4 aut | |
| 109 | |a Sandsmark, Evan | ||
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Cosmological Argument |b A Pragmatic Defense |c Evan Sandsmark |
| 264 | 1 | |c [2010] | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a We formulate a sort of generic Cosmological argument, i.e., a Cosmological argument that shares premises (e.g., contingent, concretely existing entities have a cause) with numerous versions of the argument. We then defend each of the premises by offering pragmatic arguments for them. We show that an endorsement of each premise will lead to an increase in expected utility; so in the absence of strong evidence that the premises are false, it is rational to endorse them. Therefore, it is rational to endorse the Cosmological argument, and so rational to endorse theism. We then consider possible objections. | ||
| 601 | |a Argumentation | ||
| 601 | |a Pragmatik | ||
| 700 | 1 | |a Megill, Jason L. |4 oth | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t European journal for philosophy of religion |d Innsbruck : University of Innsbruck in cooperation with the John Hick Centre for Philosophy of Religion at the University of Birmingham, 2009 |g 2(2010), 1, Seite 127-142 |h Online-Ressource |w (DE-627)718600770 |w (DE-600)2659606-4 |w (DE-576)477533728 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:2 |g year:2010 |g number:1 |g pages:127-142 |
| 776 | |i Erscheint auch als |n Druckausgabe |w (DE-627)1636901255 |k Non-Electronic | ||
| 856 | |u https://philpapers.org/archive/SANCAA-3.pdf |x unpaywall |z Vermutlich kostenfreier Zugang |h repository [oa repository (via OAI-PMH title and first author match)] | ||
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://webapp.uibk.ac.at/ojs2/index.php/EJPR/article/view/354 |x Verlag |z teilw. kostenfrei |3 Volltext |
| 856 | |u https://doi.org/10.24204/ejpr.v2i1.354 |x doi |3 Volltext | ||
| 936 | u | w | |d 2 |j 2010 |e 1 |h 127-142 |
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| ELC | |a 1 | ||
| LOK | |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 | ||
| LOK | |0 001 2992875937 | ||
| LOK | |0 003 DE-627 | ||
| LOK | |0 004 1567182321 | ||
| LOK | |0 005 20180115170137 | ||
| LOK | |0 008 180115||||||||||||||||ger||||||| | ||
| LOK | |0 040 |a DE-Tue135 |c DE-627 |d DE-Tue135 | ||
| LOK | |0 092 |o n | ||
| LOK | |0 852 |a DE-Tue135 | ||
| LOK | |0 852 1 |9 00 | ||
| LOK | |0 935 |a ixzs |a ixzo | ||
| OAS | |a 1 | ||
| ORI | |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw | ||
| REL | |a 1 | ||
| SUB | |a REL | ||