Copleston's Metaphysical Argument Analysis

901 Words4 Pages
In this essay, I will examine the debate between Russell and Copleston as they discuss the ‘Metaphysical Argument’ for the existence of God. Taking into consideration both sides of the argument, I will defend Copleston’s philosophical views as being right. I will first explain Copleston’s position through the Principle of Sufficient Reason and then provide the reasons why I agree with them.
In the debate, Copleston takes a stance in favor of the existence of a biblical God using the Cosmological Argument as his proof. Further more, within this philosophical theory, Copleston embraces the Principle of Sufficient Reason. It is with this that he believes that nothing alive today exists without sufficient reason, including the Universe itself. Everything is contingent
…show more content…
A chair, for example, could not exist if a certain tree did not grow to provide the wood as a building material. Furthermore, the chair would not have been built if the carpenter did not assemble it. That same carpenter would not have been alive to create the chair if his parents did not birth him. It stands to reason that you are able to follow these chain events backwards from the creation of the chair to infinity. Copleston believes that if we reach to that infinity, there will be no rationalization for existence so it is necessary that there is something, which relies only on itself for existence, to have been the start of infinity. It is with this concept in mind, which brings me to why I think Copleston was more convincing than his debate opponent.
In my view, it is Russell who has given the evidence as to why I believe that

More about Copleston's Metaphysical Argument Analysis

Open Document