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.

Author: Goltishura JoJolkis
Country: Slovenia
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Finance
Published (Last): 6 August 2018
Pages: 128
PDF File Size: 19.75 Mb
ePub File Size: 8.10 Mb
ISBN: 567-8-99460-867-7
Downloads: 29125
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Vuzil

This page was last edited on 2 Octoberat 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 the late 20th century.

Archived from the original on 22 June Copleston Debate the Existence of God, “. Bertrand Russell on YouTube. Views Read Edit View history.

Russell however found both arguments unconvincing. He contended that Copleston’s argument from contingency is a fallacy, and that there are better explanations for our moral and religious experience: First, as to the metaphysical argument: A Debate on 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:.


Copleston–Russell debate – Wikipedia

The infinity of the series of contingent beings, even if proved, would be irrelevant. I say that if there were no necessary being, no being which must exist and cannot not-exist, nothing would exist.

You say that the series of events needs no explanation: By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Debqte you had admitted this, we could then have discussed whether that being is personal, good, and so on. I don’t admit the connotations of such a term as “contingent” or the possibility of explanation in Father Copleston’s sense.

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 meaning in calling things “contingent” because there isn’t anything else they could be.

First, that the existence of God can be philosophically proved bertrqnd a metaphysical argument; secondly, that it is only the existence of God that will make sense of man’s moral experience and u religious experience.

Histórico debate entre Bertrand Russell y Copleston (subtitulado)

The Cosmological Argument — F. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Whether he was an agnostic or atheist is a question sntre had addressed before; while berttand agnostic with regard to the Christian God, as with the Greek Gods, to all intents and purposes he can be considered an atheist. Retrieved from ” https: Something does exist; therefore, there must be something which accounts for this fact, a being which is outside the series of contingent beings. 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.

That is, of beings no one of which can account for its own existence. 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: Twentieth-Century Philosophy of Religion: