DEBATE SOBRE LA EXISTENCIA DE DIOS RUSSELL Y COPLESTON PDF
Historico debate;La existencia de Dios Russell VS Copleston:ESPAÑOL en 2D. Sobre la santificacion de la memoria. Find this Pin and more on La Fe. Materia y racionalidad: sobre la existencia de la Idea de Pérez Bertrand Russell y F. C. Copleston: “Debate sobre la existencia de Dios”. Existencia e identidad: especificación frente a descripción de un dominio.A. Arrieta Bertrand Russell y F. C. Copleston: “Debate sobre la existencia de Dios “.
|Published (Last):||8 March 2004|
|PDF File Size:||14.64 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||9.91 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Yes, certainly if anybody saw God, he would see that Rusdell must exist. I don’t say that these things are good because they participate in the Divine goodness.
Wonfilio Trejo, Russell: descripcion y existencia – PhilPapers
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. If the word is meaningless, it can’t be so very handy.
Science Logic and Mathematics. Why shouldn’t one raise the question of the cause of the existence of all particular objects? When Sartre, for example, says the world is gratuitous, I think that he has not sufficiently considered what is implied by “gratuitous.
I’ve had experiences myself that have altered my character profoundly. Moreover, the statement that the world is simply there if in answer to a question, presupposes that the question has meaning. Those experiences were important, but they did not involve the existence of something outside me, and I don’t think that if I’d thought they did, the fact that they had a wholesome effect would have been any evidence that I was right.
Isn’t it because he’s in the minority? By religious experience I don’t mean simply feeling good. Existnecia for things not having a cause, the physicists assure us that individual quantum transitions in atoms have no cause.
Because, therefore, it will follow that it cannot be an analytic proposition ever to say that this or that exists. The dogmatic position behind it seems to be this: Then I can only say you’re looking for something which can’t be got, and which existenccia ought not to expect to get. Roughly speaking, yes, though I should have to ccopleston some limitation on your last clause. No keywords specified fix it.
It seems to me entirely Why do we intellectually condemn the color-blind man?
About: Frederick Copleston
The face that they can all see it tends to make them think that it’s not an hallucination: He admits the experience is something inexpressible, the object is an object of love, and therefore, not an object coplestton causes horror and disgust.
No, I shouldn’t quite go so far as that. Sign in to use this feature.
Practically speaking — yes. And I think that is what is meant by “ought. No, but if you were making a utilitarian explanation of right and wrong in terms of consequences, it might be held, and I suppose some of the Nazis of the better type would have held that although it’s lamentable to have to act in this way, yet the balance in the long run leads to greater happiness.
Russell: descripcion y existencia
I think that the recognition of this ideal moral order is part of the recognition of contingency. Back to Home Page. Well, I wonder if you can explain away the idea of the “ought” merely in terms of nurses and parents. But if you say “Yes, God is the cause of the world” you’re using God as a proper name; then “God exists” will not be a statement that has meaning; that is the position that I am maintaining.
Well, we can press the point a little, I think.
Debate Sobre La Existencia De Dios
A “Necessary” Being, on the other hand means a being that must and cannot not exist. Moreover, your theory explains moral obligation away, and explaining away is not explanation. Either God only speaks to a very small percentage of mankind — which happens to include yourself — or He deliberately says things are not true in talking to the consciences of savages. Carlo Fernandez – – Philosophica And that existence, in fact, quite definitely is not a predicate.
I see no reason to suppose that one could condition all men as one can “condition” an animal, and I don’t suppose you’d really want to do so even if one could. But aren’t you sios saying in effect, I mean by God whatever is good or the sum total of what is good — the system of what is good, and, therefore, when a young man loves anything that is good he is loving God. Yes, a being the essence of which is to exist.
What I’m contending is that we don’t know that there is. Well, for practical purposes — but theoretically, copletson only a partial explanation. May I interrupt for a moment here.
Setup an account sobfe your affiliations in order to access resources via your University’s proxy server Configure custom proxy use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy. I’m inclined to think that “ought,” the feeling that one has about “ought” is an echo of what has been told one by one’s parents or one’s nurses.
But I don’t know that there are. To Adolf Hitler we suppose it appeared as something good and desirable, I suppose you’d have to admit that for Hitler it was good and for you it is evil. I should claim that cannot be explained adequately and without residue, simply subjectively.
No categories specified categorize this paper. If the word “cause” were meaningless or if it could be shown sore Kant’s view of the matter were correct, the question would be illegitimate I agree; but you don’t seem to hold that the word “cause” is meaningless, and I do not suppose you are a Kantian.
And I can’t admit any circumstances in which certain kinds of behavior, such as you coplestn been discussing, would do good. It seems to be that if there is a moral order bearing upon the human conscience, that existecia moral order is unintelligible apart from the existence of God.
So if you add up contingent beings to infinity, you still get contingent beings, not a Necessary Being. I don’t regard religious experience as a strict proof of the existence of God, so the character of the discussion changes somewhat, but I think it’s true to say that the best explanation of it is u existence of God. What do you say — shall we pass on to some other issue?