{"title":"卡拉姆宇宙学论证和实际的无限","authors":"Igor Stojanovic","doi":"10.2298/theo2301141s","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The kalam cosmological argument has received a renewed attention in\n philosophical literature after several presentations and defenses of its\n versions offered by William Lane Craig. The crux of the debate about Craig?s\n a priori arguments in its favor has had mainly to do with the analysis of\n the concept of actual infinity and its implications for the possibility that\n the universe has an infinite past. While Craig?s arguments point to the\n counter-intuitiveness of the implications of the existence such a past, his\n critics offer reasons to think that his analysis is flawed in different\n respects, mostly due to inappropriate application of mathematical concept of\n an infinite set. I aim to show that the criticisms on offer have flaws of\n their own and, hence, fail to show that Craig?s reasoning is insufficient to\n offer serious reasons to doubt the coherence of the notion of the infinite\n past. I argue that a more serious threat to Craig?s arguments lies in\n certain types of symmetry between the past and the future.","PeriodicalId":374875,"journal":{"name":"Theoria, Beograd","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Kalam Cosmological Argument and the actual infinity\",\"authors\":\"Igor Stojanovic\",\"doi\":\"10.2298/theo2301141s\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The kalam cosmological argument has received a renewed attention in\\n philosophical literature after several presentations and defenses of its\\n versions offered by William Lane Craig. The crux of the debate about Craig?s\\n a priori arguments in its favor has had mainly to do with the analysis of\\n the concept of actual infinity and its implications for the possibility that\\n the universe has an infinite past. While Craig?s arguments point to the\\n counter-intuitiveness of the implications of the existence such a past, his\\n critics offer reasons to think that his analysis is flawed in different\\n respects, mostly due to inappropriate application of mathematical concept of\\n an infinite set. I aim to show that the criticisms on offer have flaws of\\n their own and, hence, fail to show that Craig?s reasoning is insufficient to\\n offer serious reasons to doubt the coherence of the notion of the infinite\\n past. I argue that a more serious threat to Craig?s arguments lies in\\n certain types of symmetry between the past and the future.\",\"PeriodicalId\":374875,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Theoria, Beograd\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Theoria, Beograd\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2298/theo2301141s\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theoria, Beograd","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2298/theo2301141s","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
在威廉·莱恩·克雷格(William Lane Craig)对卡拉姆宇宙论的几个版本进行了陈述和辩护之后,卡拉姆宇宙论的论点在哲学文献中得到了新的关注。关于克雷格的争论的关键是什么?支持先验理论的先验论证,主要是关于对实际无限性概念的分析,以及它对宇宙有无限过去的可能性的暗示。虽然克雷格?S的论点指出了存在这样一个过去的含义的反直觉性,他的批评者提供了理由认为他的分析在不同方面是有缺陷的,主要是由于不恰当地应用了无限集的数学概念。我的目的是表明,所提供的批评有其自身的缺陷,因此,未能表明克雷格?S的推理不足以提供严肃的理由来怀疑无限过去概念的一致性。我认为这是对克雷格更严重的威胁?S论点在于过去和未来之间的某种对称。
Kalam Cosmological Argument and the actual infinity
The kalam cosmological argument has received a renewed attention in
philosophical literature after several presentations and defenses of its
versions offered by William Lane Craig. The crux of the debate about Craig?s
a priori arguments in its favor has had mainly to do with the analysis of
the concept of actual infinity and its implications for the possibility that
the universe has an infinite past. While Craig?s arguments point to the
counter-intuitiveness of the implications of the existence such a past, his
critics offer reasons to think that his analysis is flawed in different
respects, mostly due to inappropriate application of mathematical concept of
an infinite set. I aim to show that the criticisms on offer have flaws of
their own and, hence, fail to show that Craig?s reasoning is insufficient to
offer serious reasons to doubt the coherence of the notion of the infinite
past. I argue that a more serious threat to Craig?s arguments lies in
certain types of symmetry between the past and the future.