Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-p5m67 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-30T02:28:32.130Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Bayesian formulation of the kalam cosmological argument

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 May 2014

CALUM MILLER
CALUM MILLER*
Affiliation:
St Hugh's College, University of Oxford, Oxfordshire, OX2 6LE, UK e-mail: calum.miller@oxon.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There has been a trend within natural theology to present arguments for theism deductively, such that at least one of the premises is likely to be extremely controversial. For those arguments with less controversial premises, the conclusion is usually something short of theism. On these grounds, some have employed probabilistic reasoning to revive classical arguments – to use less controversial premises in achieving a conclusion directly relevant to whether theism is true or not. Here, I formulate the kalam cosmological argument in Bayesian terms, and argue that doing so renders many objections levelled against it obsolete.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 50 , Issue 4 , December 2014 , pp. 521 - 534
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Craig, W. L. (2000) The Tensed Theory of Time: A Critical Examination (Dordrecht: Kluwer).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, W. L. (2011) ‘Debate with Stephen Law’, Westminster Central Hall, London.Google Scholar
Craig, W. L. & Sinclair, J. D. (2009) ‘The kalam cosmological argument’, in Craig, W. L. & Moreland, J. P. (eds) The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (Oxford: Blackwell), 101–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eagle, A. (2011) Philosophy of Probability: Contemporary Readings (Oxford: Routledge).Google Scholar
Gendler, T. S. & Hawthorne, J. (2002) Conceivability and Possibility (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Kment, B. (2012) ‘Varieties of modality’, in Zalta, E. N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012 edn). [online] Available at <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/modality-varieties/> [accessed 12 February 2013].Google Scholar
Kripke, S. (1980) Naming and Necessity (Oxford: Blackwell).Google Scholar
Law, S. (2011) ‘Comments on Glenn Peoples’ moral argument for God’. [online] Available at <http://stephenlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/glenn-peoples-moral-argument-for-god.html> [accessed 8 January 2013].+[accessed+8+January+2013].>Google Scholar
Mcgrew, T. & Depoe, J. M. (2013) ‘Natural theology and the uses of argument’, Philosophia Christi, 15, 299–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar