September 12, 2012

This Post is Old!

The post you are reading is years old and may not represent my current views. I started blogging around the time I first began to study philosophy, age 17. In my view, the point of philosophy is to expose our beliefs to rational scrutiny so we can revise them and get better beliefs that are more likely to be true. That's what I've been up to all these years, and this blog has been part of that process. For my latest thoughts, please see the front page.

Carroll on God and Physics

Sean Carroll has a great article on God, physics, and explanation up on his web-site. I've posted some comments regarding it over at Prosblogion.

Posted by Kenny at September 12, 2012 2:38 PM
TrackBack URL for this entry:


Hi Kenny, nice review. So you really think the ontological arguments and contingency arguments are better than first cause and fine tuning arguments? It seems that the general opinion of the ontological arguments is that they seem to define God into existence, and in general are not compelling. Is there some further reading I can do? Also, I have not explored the argument from contigency, where should I start?

Posted by: Zia at September 16, 2012 7:19 PM

Hi Zia,

You are certainly right that the general opinion among philosophers of religion is that the fine-tuning argument does much better than the ontological argument. I am in the minority here. On the other hand, the view that the argument from contingency is one of the better arguments is a pretty mainstream position, I think.

I have explored all of these issues in my series of posts on Sobel's Logic and Theism. Also, for my view of the ontological argument, see here.

On the argument from contingency, my favorite classical presentation is Leibniz's "On the Ultimate Origination of the Things," which can be found in his 'Philosophical Essays,' ed. and tr. Ariew and Garber. The best recent treatment of the surrounding metaphysical issues is Pruss's The Principle of Sufficient Reason, which I mentioned in the post. It's not directly a defense of the argument from contingency, but it is a defense of the central premise of that argument, namely, the principle of sufficient reason. I don't know your level of background; some parts of Pruss's book are fairly technical. I don't know a shorter or less technical treatment off the top of my head.

Posted by: Kenny at September 17, 2012 8:42 AM

Post a comment

Return to