File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: On Finitism and the Beginning of the Universe: A Reply to Stephen Puryear

TitleOn Finitism and the Beginning of the Universe: A Reply to Stephen Puryear
Authors
Keywordscontinuity
events
infinity
Kalam Cosmological Argument
space
time
Issue Date2016
PublisherRoutledge. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/00048402.asp
Citation
Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 2016, v. 94 n. 3, p. 591-595 How to Cite?
AbstractStephen Puryear argues that William Lane Craig's view, that time as duration is logically prior to the potentially infinite divisions that we make of it, involves the idea that time is prior to any parts we conceive within it (Priority of the Whole with respect to Time: PWT). He objects that PWT entails the Priority of the Whole with respect to Events (PWE), and that it subverts the argument, used by proponents of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) such as Craig, against an eternal past based on the impossibility of traversing an actual infinite sequence of events. I argue that proponents of KCA can affirm that time is not discrete, nor is it continuous with actual infinite number of parts or points, but rather that it is a continuum with various parts yet without an actual infinite number of parts or points. I defend this view, and I reply to Puryear's other objections. © 2015 Australasian Association of Philosophy
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/220687
ISSN
2020 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.703
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLoke, TEA-
dc.date.accessioned2015-10-16T06:49:39Z-
dc.date.available2015-10-16T06:49:39Z-
dc.date.issued2016-
dc.identifier.citationAustralasian Journal of Philosophy, 2016, v. 94 n. 3, p. 591-595-
dc.identifier.issn0004-8402-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/220687-
dc.description.abstractStephen Puryear argues that William Lane Craig's view, that time as duration is logically prior to the potentially infinite divisions that we make of it, involves the idea that time is prior to any parts we conceive within it (Priority of the Whole with respect to Time: PWT). He objects that PWT entails the Priority of the Whole with respect to Events (PWE), and that it subverts the argument, used by proponents of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) such as Craig, against an eternal past based on the impossibility of traversing an actual infinite sequence of events. I argue that proponents of KCA can affirm that time is not discrete, nor is it continuous with actual infinite number of parts or points, but rather that it is a continuum with various parts yet without an actual infinite number of parts or points. I defend this view, and I reply to Puryear's other objections. © 2015 Australasian Association of Philosophy-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherRoutledge. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/00048402.asp-
dc.relation.ispartofAustralasian Journal of Philosophy-
dc.rightsThis is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis Group inAustralasian Journal of Philosophy on 28 Sep 2015, available online at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00048402.2015.1089448-
dc.subjectcontinuity-
dc.subjectevents-
dc.subjectinfinity-
dc.subjectKalam Cosmological Argument-
dc.subjectspace-
dc.subjecttime-
dc.titleOn Finitism and the Beginning of the Universe: A Reply to Stephen Puryear-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.emailLoke, TEA: andyloke@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityLoke, TEA=rp01982-
dc.description.naturepostprint-
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/00048402.2015.1089448-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-84945205371-
dc.identifier.hkuros256131-
dc.identifier.volume94-
dc.identifier.issue3-
dc.identifier.spage591-
dc.identifier.epage595-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000384438100013-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdom-
dc.identifier.issnl0004-8402-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats