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 “.

Author: Tabar Kagami
Country: Guinea
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Business
Published (Last): 9 September 2005
Pages: 68
PDF File Size: 16.65 Mb
ePub File Size: 9.44 Mb
ISBN: 442-6-76575-155-1
Downloads: 57840
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Tygotaur

Surely Hitler would be the only possible judge of what appealed to his emotions. Lorenzo Vicente Burgoa – – Ciencia Tomista It is existecia true a posteriori through our experience of the world that we come to a knowledge of the existence of that Being.

I quite agree, of course, that people have imagined or thought they have heard of seen Satan. I think the word “contingent” inevitably suggests the possibility of something that wouldn’t have coleston what you might call accidental character of just being there, and I don’t think is true except int he purely causal sense.

Russell: descripcion y existencia

Well, I don’t see that differences in particular moral judgments are any conclusive argument against the universality of the moral law. But the proposition is a necessary proposition only on the supposition that there is a contingent being. Would you agree that if there is no God copleaton no absolute Being — there can be no absolute values?

Arrieta Urtizberea – – Teorema: You say, I think that the universe — or my existence if you prefer, or any other existence — is unintelligible?

Debate Sobre La Existencia De Dios by Bertrand Russell (2 star ratings)

I mean, would you say that the non-existence of God can be proved? William Henderson – – Dianoia 26 As to the phrase “existent round-square,” I should say that it has no meaning at all. Yes, in one sense the man’s loving a phantom — perfectly true.

I don’t see why one should expect it to have It will help to explain changes in the matter of the coplestoj law in the content of the precepts as accepted by this or that nation, or this or that individual.

So if you add up contingent beings to infinity, you still get contingent beings, not a Necessary Being.

  LOS DIENTES DE CAPERUCITA ANDRES CAICEDO PDF

Wonfilio Trejo, Russell: descripcion y existencia – PhilPapers

Yes, but that’s a point to be proved. Edit this record Mark as duplicate Export citation Find it on Scholar Request removal from index Translate to english Revision history. If it is caused, there must obviously be a cause outside the series.

For example, would you agree that if God does not exist, human beings and human history can have no other purpose than the purpose they choose to give themselves, which — in practice — is likely to mean the purpose which those impose who have the power to impose it? As for Sartre, I don’t profess to know what he means, and I shouldn’t like to be thought to interpret him, but for my part, I do think the notion of the world having an explanation is a mistake.

After all, the problem of God’s existence is an existential problem whereas logical analysis does not deal directly with problems of existence. Wonfilio Trejo – – Critica 2 4: It’s not a general position that all words that are used in metaphysics are nonsense, or anything like that which I don’t really hold. Well, that’s what I was asking.

I don’t approve of them, and I know you don’t approve of them, but I don’t see what ground you have for not approving of them, because after all, to the Commandant of Belsen himself, they’re pleasant, those actions. He admits the experience is something inexpressible, the object is an object of love, and therefore, not an object that causes horror and disgust. It’s quite all right if you mean by explaining it, simply finding a cause for it.

Well, this being is either itself the reason for its own existence, or it is not. Russell Y el problema de la referencia. I think it’s an important part of philosophy, and when I say that, I don’t find a meaning for this or that word, sibre is a position of detail based upon what I’ve found out about that particular word, from thinking about it. Well, if it’s a question slbre for you has no meaning, it’s of course very difficult to discuss it, isn’t it?

But are you going to say that we can’t, or we shouldn’t even raise the question of the existence of the whole of this sorry scheme of things — of the whole universe? 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. 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.

  FLITCHED BEAMS PDF

But it can’t be necessary since each member is contingent, and we’ve agreed that the total has no reality apart from the members, therefore, it can’t be necessary.

This raises a great many points and it’s not altogether easy to know where to begin, but I think that, perhaps, in answering your argument, the best point with which to begin is the question of 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 the existence of God.

The fact that a belief has a good moral effect upon a man is no evidence whatsoever in favor of its truth. But those points I will leave out for the moment. The whole concept of cause is one we derive from our observation of particular things; I see no reason whatsoever to suppose that the total has any cause whatsoever. You may say that the adequate explanation of that is that I rub it on the box. Every man who exists has a mother, and it seems to me your argument is that therefore the human race must have a mother, but obviously the human race hasn’t a mother — that’s a different logical sphere.

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.