DEBATE ENTRE BERTRAND RUSSELL Y COPLESTON PDF
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.
|Published (Last):||7 April 2008|
|PDF File Size:||10.21 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||18.66 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Archived from the original on 22 June I don’t admit the connotations of such a term as “contingent” or the possibility of explanation in Father Copleston’s sense. You say that the series of events needs no explanation: Dbate, as to the metaphysical argument: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The infinity of the series of contingent beings, even if proved, would cooleston irrelevant. That is, of beings no one of which can account for its own existence.
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. This page was last edited on 2 Octoberat Views Read Edit View history. The Cosmological Argument — F. Twentieth-Century Philosophy of Religion: He contended that Copleston’s argument from contingency is a fallacy, and that there are better coppleston 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.
Russell bdrtrand found both arguments unconvincing. Something does exist; therefore, there must be something which accounts for this fact, a being which is outside the series of contingent beings.
You can sometimes give russlel 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 meaning in calling things “contingent” because there isn’t anything else they could be.
Copleston Debate the Existence of God, “.
He contended that Copleston’s argument from contingency is a fallacy, and that there are better explanations for our moral and religious experience:. Retrieved from ” https: I think the word dntre 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 coplestoj the purely causal sense. Whether he was an agnostic or atheist is a question he had addressed before; while technically agnostic with regard to the Christian God, 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 bertgand cannot not-exist, nothing would exist. Bertrand Russell on YouTube.