Приказ основних података о документу
Kalam kosmološki argument i aktuelna beskonačnost
Kalam cosmological argument and the actual infinity
dc.creator | Stojanović, Igor | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2023-11-20T12:20:13Z | |
dc.date.available | 2023-11-20T12:20:13Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2023 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://reff.f.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/5351 | |
dc.description.abstract | Tip kosmološkog argumenta koji je u filozofskoj i teološkoj literaturi poznat kao Kalam argument je dobio posebnu pažnju u savremenoj filozofiji religije nakon argumenata koje je u prilog njegovoj verziji ponudio Vilijam Lejn Krejg. A priori argumenti koje Krejg nudi se pozivaju na kontraintuitivnost implikacija pojma aktuelne beskonačnosti i ideje sukcesivne izgradnje aktuelno beskonačnog uređenog skupa događaja. Prigovori upućivani Krejgu ukazuju na konzistentnost i primenljivost egzaktnog tretmana kom je pojam beskonačnosti podvrgnut u matematici kao na faktor koji čini neobičnost implikacija ovog tretmana nevažnom. U ovom radu nastojim da ukažem na propuste konkretnih zamerki upućenih Krejgu i da pokažem da matematička analiza koju njegovi protivnici koriste ne vodi uvek do zaključaka koje na osnovu nje izvode. Nakon ove odbrane Krejgovih argumenata, pokazaću da veću pretnju po njegovu argumentaciju predstavljaju izvesne simetrije koje, po nekim metafizičkim analizama vremena, postoje između prošlosti i budućnosti. | sr |
dc.description.abstract | 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. | sr |
dc.language.iso | sr | sr |
dc.publisher | Filozofsko društvo Srbije | sr |
dc.rights | openAccess | sr |
dc.rights.uri | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ | |
dc.source | Theoria | sr |
dc.subject | Kalam argument | sr |
dc.subject | aktuelna beskonačnost | sr |
dc.subject | kosmološki argument | sr |
dc.subject | postojanje Boga | sr |
dc.subject | V. L. Krejg | sr |
dc.subject | metafizika vremena | sr |
dc.subject | beskonačni nizovi | sr |
dc.subject | actual infinity | sr |
dc.subject | cosmological argument | sr |
dc.subject | existence of God | sr |
dc.subject | W. L. Craig | sr |
dc.subject | metaphysics of time | sr |
dc.subject | infinite sets | sr |
dc.title | Kalam kosmološki argument i aktuelna beskonačnost | sr |
dc.title | Kalam cosmological argument and the actual infinity | sr |
dc.type | article | sr |
dc.rights.license | BY | sr |
dc.citation.epage | 164 | |
dc.citation.issue | 1 | |
dc.citation.spage | 141 | |
dc.citation.volume | 66 | |
dc.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.2298/THEO2301141S | |
dc.identifier.fulltext | http://reff.f.bg.ac.rs/bitstream/id/12154/bitstream_12154.pdf | |
dc.type.version | publishedVersion | sr |