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):||18 March 2016|
|PDF File Size:||6.33 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||20.30 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
But he does not bring in the idea of God to support that contention. Moreover, the statement that the world is simply there if in answer to a question, presupposes that the question has meaning.
Well, this being is either debatr the reason for its own existence, or it is not.
Wonfilio Trejo, Russell: descripcion y existencia – PhilPapers
I really don’t see how it can be conveyed to anybody in other terms than itself. After all, the problem of God’s existence is an existential problem whereas logical analysis does not deal directly with problems of existence. Would you agree — provisionally at least — to accept this statement as the meaning of the term “God”? Science Logic and Mathematics. Sign in Create an account.
Miguel F. Sciacca, Reflexiones sobre la existencia de Dios – PhilPapers
Well, I should have to answer at considerable length to answer that. When the logic that he uses was new — namely, in rusesll time of Aristotle, there had to be a great deal of fuss made about it; Aristotle made a lot of fuss about that logic. Perhaps you would tell me if your position is that of agnosticism or of rusell. Ajuste fino, objeciones Y respuestas.
That is by no means always the case. Yes, but what’s your russepl for distinguishing between good and bad or how do you view the distinction between them? But that’s my point. Well, the word “gratuitous” suggests that it might be something else; I should say that the universe is just there, and that’s all. What I’m contending is that we don’t know that there is.
Russell: descripcion y existencia
Eliot exists”; one ought to say, for example, “[He,] the author of Murder in the Cathedralexists. I don’t think the animal refrains from arguing within himself, “Master will be angry if I do this. If you are going to call every necessary proposition an analytic proposition, then — in order to avoid a dispute in terminology — I would agree to call it analytic, though I don’t consider it a tautological proposition. If it is caused, there must obviously be a cause outside the series.
It may be that, to quote Professor Haldane, “when I Iight the ddebate under the kettle, some of the water molecules will fly off as vapor, and there is no way of finding out which will do so,” but it doesn’t follow necessarily that the idea of chance must be introduced except in relation to our knowledge. This article has no associated abstract. Carlo Fernandez – – Philosophica Japanese novelists never consider that they have achieved a success unless colleston numbers of real people commit suicide for love of the imaginary heroine.
In one sense he’s rhssell a phantom that’s perfectly true, in the sense, I mean, that he’s loving X or Y who doesn’t exist. But I do not think that people have claimed to have experienced Satan in the precise way in which mystics claim to have experienced God.
Reflexiones sobre la existencia de Dios
In the second place, not all modern logicians surely would sobde the meaninglessness of metaphysics. Edit this record Mark as duplicate Export citation Find it on Scholar Request removal from index Translate to english Revision history.
That there is a contingent being actually existing has to be discovered by experience, and the proposition fussell there is a contingent being is certainly not an analytic proposition, though once you know, I should maintain, that there is a contingent being, it follows of necessity that there is a Necessary Being. Then you have to say one or other of two things. If the word “cause” were meaningless or if it could be shown that Kant’s view ruzsell 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.
Well, I can’t really see a parity. Well, I can’t see how you can rule out the legitimacy of asking the question how the total, or anything at all comes to be there.
The moral law, for example, is always changing.
And, in fact, only to such as are analytic — that is to say — such as it is self-contradictory to deny. You say that the series of events needs no explanation: The dogmatic position behind it seems to be this: A “Necessary” Being, on the other hand means a being that must and cannot not exist. Theoretically speaking I should have to define moral obligation rather carefully. Let’s assume for the moment that there are absolute moral values, even on that hypothesis it’s only to be expected that different individuals and different groups should enjoy varying degrees of insight into those values.
Plutarch’s Lives take Lycurgus as an example, who certainly did not exist, but you might be very much influenced by reading Lycurgus under the impression that he had previously existed.
Back to Philosophy Articles. You see, I don’t believe that the infinity of the series of events — I mean a horizontal series, so to speak — if such an infinity could be proved, would be in the slightest degree ecistencia to the situation.