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: Nijas Gum
Country: Greece
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Photos
Published (Last): 11 January 2016
Pages: 485
PDF File Size: 1.43 Mb
ePub File Size: 7.38 Mb
ISBN: 828-6-70900-790-1
Downloads: 8027
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Faumi

And then one argues, the essence and existence must be identical. Doos think it’s an important part of philosophy, and when I say that, I don’t find a meaning for this or that word, that is a position of detail based upon what I’ve found out about that particular word, from thinking about it. For one thing it would fail to meet the requirements of the experience of freedom. Well, this being is either itself the reason for its own existence, or it is not.

In any russe,l, if the total has no cause, then to my way of thinking it must be its own cause, which seems to me impossible.

If it’s not caused then it’s sufficient to itself, and if it’s sufficient to itself, it is what I call necessary. That sounds well but isn’t in fact correct.

We know that an animal, if punished habitually for a certain sort of act, after a time will refrain. Sobrr love the things that are good, that I think are good, and I hate the things that I think are bad.

Arrieta Urtizberea – – Teorema: Then you’d say that there’s no criterion outside feeling that will enable one to distinguish between the behavior of the Commandant of Belsen and the behavior, say, of Sir Stafford Cripps or the Archbishop of Canterbury. After all, the problem of God’s existence is an existential problem whereas logical analysis does not deal directly with problems of existence. The logic that I believe in is comparatively new, and therefore I have to imitate Aristotle in making a fuss about it; but it’s not that I think it’s all philosophy by any means — I don’t think so.


However, you say, I think, that it is illegitimate to raise the question of what will explain the existence of any particular object. The word “necessary” I should maintain, can only be applied significantly to propositions.

But I don’t see any reason to say that — I mean we all know about conditioned reflexes.

To say that one has not found it is one thing; to say that one should not look for it seems to me rather dogmatic. William Henderson – – Dianoia 26 If you add up chocolates you get chocolates after all and not a sheep.

This entry has no external links. Nowadays it’s become old and respectable, and you don’t have to make so much fuss about it. Copleston Jesuit Catholic priest versus Bertrand Russell agnostic philosopher, picture right.

Debate Sobre La Existencia De Dios

If you’ll give me a ground I will listen to it. That seems to me to be impossible, and it raises, of course, the question what one means by existence, and as to this, I think a subject named can never be significantly said to exist but only a subject described.

Do russelk mean that you reject these terms because they won’t fit in with what is called “modern logic”? For that assumption I see no ground whatever.

Fr. Copleston vs. Bertrand Russell: The Famous BBC Radio Debate on the Existence of God

As regards the metaphysical argument, we are apparently in agreement that what we call the world consists sober of contingent beings. After all the man who is influenced by Lycurgus hasn’t got the irresistible impression that he’s experience in some way the ultimate reality.

At one period in the development of the human race, almost everybody thought cannibalism was a duty. Yes, I accept this definition. Japanese novelists never consider that they have achieved a success unless large numbers of real people commit suicide for love of the imaginary heroine.


Russell Y el problema de la referencia. But if we proceed to infinity in that sense, then there’s no explanation of existence at all. But even that I don’t think is any evidence. But surely in the case of the devils there have been people speaking mainly of visions, appearance, angels or demons and so on. The experiment may be a bad one, it may lead to no result, or not to the result that he wants, but that at any rate there is the possibility, through experiment, of finding out the truth that he assumes.

Well, that’s always assuming that not only every particular thing in the world, but the world as a whole must have a cause. Would you agree — provisionally at least — to accept this statement as the meaning of the term “God”?

Take the case of a non-Christian, Plotinus. 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?

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.

Reflexiones sobre la existencia de Dios

I think the persons who think they do are deceiving themselves. Please remember that I’m not saying that a mystic’s mediation or interpretation of his experience should be immune from discussion or criticism.

Del amor a Dios al Dios-Amor. Eliana Silva – – Inquietude 3 1: Surely that’s a first cause within a certain selected field.